Feed on
Posts
Comments

Category Archive for 'Cultura'

Mihai Vinereanu R?d?cini nostratice n limba romn? o lucrare de pionierat.

Ana R. Chelariu

De curnd Dr. Mihai Vinereanu, lingvist romn de pe meleagurile americane, a publicat n Romania volumul bilingv Nostratic Roots in Romanian Language/R?d?cini nostratice in limba romn?, sub egida editurii S.C. Alcor Edimpex S.R.L. Bucure?ti, 2010. Volumul se prezint? ntr-un format elegant ?i simplu, urmnd n mod fericit o grafie similar? celui publicat de acela?i autor cu c?iva ani n urm?, Dictionar Etimologic al limbii romne, 2008.

Afl?m din Introducere c? autorul ader? n stiudiul s?u la ipoteza comform c?reia mai multe familii de limbi din Eurasia central? ?i de nord, orientul mijlociu ?i nordul Africii sunt nrudite genetic, toate f?cnd parte dintr-o limb? comun? care a primit numele de nostratic? (lat. nostr?s). Aceast? familie de limbi situat? pe undeva prin orientul apropiat a nceput s? se dezintegreze acum 17000 – 18000 mii de ani, r?spndindu-se n ceea ce numim ast?zi familia dravidian? spre est, familia kartvelian? spre nord, familiile uralic? ?i altaic? spre nord-est, apoi familiile afroasiatic? ?i sumerian? care au r?mas n zona orientului apropiat, ?i familia limbilor indo-europene care au migrat spre vest din Anatolia trecnd prin Balcani.

M. Vinereanu porne?te n ntreprinderea sa de la un studiu publicat n 1994 de Allan R. Bomhard ?i John C. Kerns, The Nostratic Macrofamily (A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship) n care autorii propun un num?r de 601 r?d?cini comune macro-familiei nostratice din care, dup? cum am men?ionat, fac parte limbile indo-europene, familia afroasiaticelor (akadiana, egipteana, copta, aramaica, ebraica, feniciana, araba, asiriana, berbera, etiopiana, sudaneza, etc.) familia kartvelian? (gerigiana, mingreliana, svan ?i zan) familia uralic? (maghiara, finlandeza , estoniana , etc.) familia dravidian? (tamil kannada, malayala, etc.), familia altaic? (mongola, turca, azera tarata, etc.) ?i sumeriana care reprezint? o familie aparte. In afara familiei nostratice r?mn amer-indienele, africanele, australienele, polinezienele, sin-tibetane, basca ?i caucazienele de nord.

In acord cu Joseph Greenberg (Essays in Linguistics, 1957) autorul sus?ine c? singura modalitate de a descoperi nrudirea genetic? ntre limbi este compararea acestora din punct de vedere morphologic, fonologic, semantic ?i lexical, cu factorul essential fiind asem?narea semantic?. Pe baza acestor precepcte Vinereanu reconstruie?te o list? compus? din 216 r?d?cini nostratice g?site n limba romn? plecnd de la cele 601 de r?d?cini propuse de Bomhard ?i Kerns.

Dup? un scurt istoric al studiului nostraticii, M. Vinereanu aduce cteva l?muriri lingvistice cu exemple, printre care ?i cteva cuvinte romne?ti f?r? etimologie clarificat?, ?i deci f?r? coresponden?i n alte limbi indo-europene, cum ar fi deal, cocor, stuf, ?i ceaf?, dar pentru care domnia sa a g?sit coresponden?i in nostratic?. In treac?t fie spus pentru ceaf? avem o explica?ie prin r?d?cina PIE *ghebh?l head/cap, ceea ce a generat n albanez? qaf (c?af?), n greac? kefalh, ?i n germanicele de nord gafl; forma proto-nostratic? este *kap(h)-/*ka(p) ceaf?, partea din spate a capului, cu derivatele proto-kartvelian *kep(h)-a [georgian? kepa, mingrelian? ?i svan? kope, kope, coroana capului] ?i proto-afroasiatic? *kap(h)-/*k?p(h) care este dat n arab? kafan, kafa? ceaf?, aceasta din urm? apropiindu-se de explica?ia tradi?ional? conform c?reia acest cuvnt romnesc ar fi un mprumut din turc?, ?i desigur contrazis? de autor. Dar posibiliatea ca acest cuvnt s? fi intrat n turc? prin persan?, ?i deci din proto-indo-euroepan?, ar trebui eliminat? nainte de a accepta propunerea nostratic?. Autorul consider? perechea smulge/mulge ca un caz concludent n favoarea explic?rii formelor romne?ti prin r?d?dina nostratic? *mal- /*m?l- a trage, a smulge, a suge, observnd c? sensul de a smulge este comun romnei ?i altor limbi nostracice n timp ce acela de a mulge este comun cu limbile indo-europene, trgnd concluzia c? ini?inal r?d?cina a avut sensul de a smulge, suge, ?i n timp, odat? cu domesticirea animalelor, sensul a suge/mulge a devenit preponderent. Discutnd problema controversat? a largalelor n indo-european?, autorul observ? c? proto-indo-europeana a avut att velara surd? aspirat? *kh, ct ?i laringala *h, mo?tenite din proto-nostratic?. Ambele apar n romn? ca h (pag. 13), folosind ca exemplu romnescul ho?<PN *k(h)aly-/*k(h) ?ly a jefui, fura, ascunde cu correspondent n PIE *k(h)elp(h), *k(h)olp(h) cu acela?i sens, ca n gr. kleptw, lat . clep?, got. hlifan a fura, hliftus ho?. Ar fi de remarcat c? din totalul de 12 r?d?cini nostratice care au ca ini?ial? laringala *k(h) Vinereanu propune n romn?: c?p?ta,t?ia,chema,piele,capr?,asculta,cange,cerc, cearc?n,c?tan?,Crena, Cri?, iar din 15 r?d?cini nostratice care au la ini?ial? *h doar dou? sau poate trei sunt presupuse a se fi pastrat n romne?te: h?mesi, hurui ?i poate regionalismul hr?u uliu, n rest avem ngust, nalt, arc, amar, ap?, ncovoia, agru, alunga, ac, ara, argint, nainte, unchi, cuvinte n care un presupus h ini?ial s-a piedut. F?r? ndoial?, aceste propuneri constituie baza unor cercet?ri viitoare care ar putea duce la elucid?ri importante.

M. Vinereanu este de p?rere, mpreun? cu Colin Renfrew, c? dup? epoca glaciar?, acum 8000-9000 de ani, primii indo-europeni s-au r?spndit venind din Asia Mic? prin Balcani formnd culturile Cucuteni , Starcevo-Cri?, Gumelni?a, considerate de domnia sa ca fiind popula?ii proto-traco-ilire ?i nu pre-indo-europene cum credea M. Gimbutas, iar cultura Kurganelor fiind o ramur? de est a indo-europenilor, care s-a rentors dup? o mie de ani n Europa. Aceast? ipotez? presupune deci c? familiile nostratice s-au r?spndit din orientul mijlociu ncepnd cu perioada 17000 18000 BC, ?i dup? aproape 10000 de ani, n urma unor glacia?iuni, au ajuns n Balcani. Dac? ipoteza venirii primilor indo-europeni din Anatolia n Balcani ncepnd cu 8000-9000 de ani nainte de Cristos ar putea fi atractiv?, ea necesit? o compara?ie atent? ntre formele de cultur? evidente n ceea ce Gimbutas numea Vechea Europ? ?i tr?s?turile culturii indo-europene, popula?ii cunoscute ca fiind cresc?tori de vite mari, cai ?i oi, practicnd agricultura pe scara redus?, arnd cu plugul, culeg?tori de miere, folosind c?ru?e pentru transport, cunoscnd fabricarea lnei ?i postavului, sacrificnd animale, oi, vite ?i cai, zeului cerului. In ideologia indo-european? rela?ia om-divinitate se rezuma la un schimb n care omul oferea o por?iune a sacrificiului animal, n acompaniament de incanta?ii versificate ?i a?tepta de la divinitate protec?ie, abunden??, ?i putere. Prezen?a n culturile de pe teritoriul actual al Romniei a unui num?r mare de statuete reprezentnd o divinitate feminin?, uneori cu cap de pas?re, pe?te, berbec sau porc, portetizat? ca zei?a ?arpe, sau cu cornul lunar n mini, vase decorate cu motive ovulare, motive lineare sugernd curgerea apei, cini, c?prioare, ?i chiar semne considerate o forma de scriere, toate acestea sunt elemente de cultura ritualic? ce ar putea ridica obiec?ii acestei ipoteze. Un studiu comparativ competent ntre grafia vaselor de Cucuteni ?i cele mai vechi exemplare de vase grece?ti ar putea duce la concluzii interesante, ?i eventual elucida aceste supozi?ii. Recent, David W. Anthony a publicat un studiu foarte interesant, The Horse the Wheel and Language (2007) n care autorul demonstraz? cu argumente arheologice c? n jurul anilor 4200- 4100 BC se produce o r?cire drastic? a climei n regiunea Dun?rii de jos, ceea ce a dus la p?r?sirea unor a?ez?minte dezvoltate, perioad? urmat? de apari?ia n regiunea Transilvaniei a unor noi a?ez?ri asem?n?toare ca forme de cultur?. Pe lng? r?cirea climei ?i sc?derea recoltelor ncepnd cu 4000 BC, Anthony men?ioneaz? masacrele de la Yunatsite ?i Hotni?a, care sunt m?rturie a unor conflicte grave.

Folosind un sistem grafic foarte clar pe tabele bine delimitate n fiecare autorul listnd r?d?cina proto-nostracit?, numerotat?, cu sensul n englez? ?i romn?, urmat? de r?d?cinile proto-indo-european?, proto-afroasiatic?, proto-altaic?, Sumerian?, etc., fiecare cu n?elesul n limbile respective, n englez? ?i romn?. La baza fiec?riu tabel este prezentat? sumar n englez? ?i romn? forma propus? pentru limba romn? cu n?elesul ei. Ce p?cat c? pentru o mai detaliat? explica?ie autorul trimite cu abrevierea (vezi DE) la dic?ionarul etimologic publicat de domnia sa n 2008, f?r? a men?iona acest dic?ionar n lista cu abrevieri .

Un exemplu interesant de r?d?cin? nostratic? ar fi proto-nostratic (PN) *bur- / *bor- a perfora, g?uri; proto-indo-european (PIE) *b(h)or g?uri; proto-afroasiatic *bar- / b?r- ib.; proto-uralic *pura- burghiu; proto-dravidian *pur- / *per- tub, gaur? tubular?, ?eav?, trahee; proto-altaic *bur-o srm? pentru cur??at pipe; sumerian br a g?uri, perfora. Desigur la fiecare familie sunt listate cuvintele din limbile respective, ca spre exemplu pentru indo-europene avem forma greac? fapow, fapaw, latin? for?, vechea englez? borian, etc., f?cnd astfel compararea mai u?or de urm?rit.

Este stiut c? n studiul rela?iilor genetice ntre limbi un factor important de care trebuie s? se ?in? seama este mprumutul. De cte ori un lingvist ncearc? s? alfe dac? dou? cuvinte din limbi diferite sunt mo?tenite dintr-o limb? mama trebuie s? exclud? posibilitatea unui mprumut. Metoda lingvisticii comparate depinde de acurate?ea cu care sunt identificate cuvintele, sunetele ?i morfologiile mprumutate. Aceasta stipula?ie nu e posibil? n cazul nostraticii care porne?te a priori de la idea c? toate limbile acestea au r?d?cini comune. Factorul timp trebuie luat n considera?ie pentru c? r?d?cinile mo?tenite ar fi trebuit s? sufere modificari sonore n fiecare familie de limbi de-a lungul unei perioade de timp a?a de mari. De asemenea, o cunoa?tere exemplar? a legilor fonetice aplicabile n toate limbile de referin?? este necesar? unui studiu pertinent. Cu ct sunt asem?n?rile mai mari cu att ele pot fi rezultatul unor imprumuturi. Este stabilit spre exemplu c? au existat rela?ii de mprumut ntre proto-indo-european? ?i proto-uralic?. Prezen?a hiti?ilor n orientul mijlociu este iar??i un factor important n abordarea studiului comparat, multe din elementele semitice fiind poate rezultatul unor contamin?ri.

Lucrarea Dr. Venereanu prezint? un punct de plecare foarte interesant ?i binevenit n cercetarea unor elemente romne?ti a c?ror etimologie este mai greu de rezolvat, deschiznd drumul discu?iilor viitoare n ceea ce prive?te substratul limbii romne.

A ap?rut anul acesta la Editura Scrisul romanesc un volum de memorii al autoarei C?t?lina Florina Florescu Inventing Me / Exercitii de retrait (Romanian).

C?t?lina Florina Florescu s-a n?scut la M?cin, Tulcea. A absolvit Facultatea de Litere din Bucure?ti n 1998. n 2003 a ob?inut masteratul n Literatura comparat? de la Purdue University, SUA. n 2007, aceea?i universitate i-a acordat titul de doctor n Literatura comparat?. A predat la Purdue University, Rutgers University, St.Peter’s College. n momentul de fa?? este cadru didactic la Stevens Institute of Technology in New Jersey , SUA. Aici pred? cursuri despre arta scrisului ?i a conversa?iei. n martie 2011, Cambridge ScholarPublishing i-a publicat prima carte de critic?, Transacting Sites of the Liminal Bodily Spaces. Alte publica?ii includ capitole n c?r?i precum The Patient, The Body in Medical Culture ?i Romanian Culure in the Global Age. Pe lng? activitatea critic?, a publicat de asemenea ?i lucr?ri creative n jurnale precum “EAPSU: A Journal of Critical and Creative Work”, “Hektoen International”, “Red Feather:An International Children’s Visual Culture”. A scris ?i dou? piese deteatru, Transitional Object ?i Three as in Tri-Angle or the After-tastes of Life. Pentru calitatea muncii depuse, a fost onorat? cu distinc?ii precum “The Puskas Memorial Fellowship” ?i “Purdue Research Foundation Grant”. n momentul de fa?? are un fellowshipoferit de Modern Language Assosiaction of America, unde a fost rugat? s? indexeze articole relevante despre via?a trecut? ?i actual? a literaturii ?i culturii romne.

Activitatea:

Florina Catalina Florescu: PhD in Comparative Literature, Purdue U, IN; MA in Comparative Literature, Purdue U, IN; BA in Romanian & American Literature, University of Bucharest, Romania.

PUBLICATIONS: BOOKS: Transacting Sites of the Liminal Bodily Spaces (criticism) (English); Inventing Me / Exercitii de retrait ( memoir ) (Romanian). BOOK CHAPTERS (The Patient, Romanian Culture in the Global Age, The Body in Medical Culture). PLAYS (TO BE PUBLISHED): Transitional Object; Three as in Tri-angle, or the Aftertastes of Life. FELLOWSHIPS: Puskas Memorial Fellowship; Purdue Research Foundation

Grant; Modern Language Association Bibliographic Fellowship.

Cu aproape ?ase luni n urm? a fost publicat n ziarul Ziua, pe 07.11.2010, comunicarea profesorului Alexander Rodewald:
“O Ev? mitocondrial? din Tracia se afl? la originea romnilor”.Alexander Rodewald:O Ev? mitocondrial? din Tracia se afl? la originea romnilor stiinta
“Popula?ia de aici a migrat apoi spre toat? Europa cu 30-40.000 de ani n urm?”, a spus profesorul Alexander Rodewald, director al Institutului de Biologie Uman? de la Universitatea din Hamburg, n cadrul unei conferin?e g?zduite de Oficiul de Stat pentru Inven?ii ?i M?rci din Bucure?ti, transmite RADOR.
Comunicarea savantului germans-a numit

“Originea poporului romn – de la mit la realitate”. “Mitul este originea latin?. Str?mo?ii romnilor, care aveau acest fond genetic, tr?iau aici cu peste 5000 de ani n urm?.
Probe ce demonstreaz? c? este vorba de cea mai veche popula?ie
european? s-au g?sit n Pe?tera cu Oase ?i la Cioclovina”, a precizat
geneticianul. Exist? ns? ?i elemente genetice comune cu popula?iile
din Anatolia , unde au tr?it hiti?ii, cu grecii, cu italienii ?i cu
bascii. Profesorul Alexander Rodewald conduce un colectiv care a f?cut
studii genetice pe oseminte vechi ?i actuale din Romnia pentru a
stabili originea poporului romn. Probabil c? Eva mitocondrial? a
tr?it cu aproximativ 200.000 de ani n urm?, crede savantul german.
Prelevarea ADN din oseminte a fost foarte dificil? din cauza vechimii
probelor. Din?ii, cel mai frecvent folosi?i pentru studii genetice,
erau foarte toci?i fiindc? localnicii m?cinau grul ?i meiul cu pietre
dure. Astfel, f?ina con?inea pulberi de silex foarte abrazive. Cu
toate c? au avut loc muta?ii importante, provocate de migra?iile din
epoca fierului, dup? invazia roman? ?i a popoarelor migratoare , mai
ales a slavilor, chiar dac? s-au produs mixturi etnice n perioada
cuceririi otomane, totu?i elementele genetice dominante sunt de
origine traco-dacic?. Acela?i lucru a fost dovedit ?i prin cercet?rile
genetice ale doamnei Georgeta Cardo?, cercet?tor ?tiin?ific biolog la
Institutul Na?ional de Cercetare “Victor Babe?”, care a investigat
mormintele domnitorilor moldoveni de la R?d?u?i. Geneticienii au
demonstrat astfel c? urma?ii lui Bogdan I nu erau cumani, a?a cum
sus?ineau recent unii istorici din ?ara noastr?. Alexander Rodewald,
care a f?cut studii de antropologie la Munchen, afirm? c? o muta?ie
genetic? apare ntr-un grup etnic la 100-1000 de ani. Cercet?torii
coordona?i de el au f?cut evalu?ri genetice ?i pe morminte din
Bucure?ti ?i din Ploie?ti, zone geografice n care au avut loc
frecvente afluxuri de popula?ie. Comunit??ile etnice mici ?i izolate,
cum ar fi cele din regiunea Sarmisegetuza Regia, nu sunt relevante
fiindc?, n timp, ajung inevitabil la endogamie. Aceste investiga?ii
se afl? nc? la nceput ?i presupun costuri foarte mari, pe care
Institutul de la Hamburg nu le poate acoperi.

Citeste pe:

http://www.ziuaveche.ro/stiinta-it/stiinta/alexander-rodewaldo-ev-mitocondrial-din-tracia-se-afl-la-originea-romanilor-9203.html

Who is Afraid of Religion? Can Science Deal with Belief and Religion with Research?

This essay considers the relation between science and religion on the ground of belief and research. Opposing the traditional modern view of the incompatibility between the two fields, namely that belief is characteristic to religion and research to science, the essay demonstrates that just as belief is also integral part of the scientific method, so is research and quest for knowledge part of religion or theology. In order to show the complementarity between science and religion, theologians, philosophers and scientists, both classic and contemporary, are brought into conversation. The conclusion is that the future cannot be a repetition or a copy of the past where disciplines evolved in isolation from each other or in opposition. The progress is based on interdisciplinarity, on integration and collaboration. While dogmatism in science has to be avoided, openness for otherness, for the difference has to be stressed in religion as both science and religion ultimately have in view the same aim: human happiness.

Etymologically speaking, referring in particular to the Latin ligo-are, religion is about man’s connectivity. With whom? It is not implied in the word itself. With God, is the meaning given to the word in time. Yet, the prefix re in “religion”, or in the Latin re-ligo-are, indicates re-connectivity. If that is applied to God, religion would mean man’s re-connection to God which implies already the break, the fall, or something else of the kind. If I had to respond at this point to the rhetorical question “Who is afraid of religion?” keeping in mind the break, the fall implied in the meaning of the word, but also the falls consequences, all of them dramatic or even tragic, the response would be: MAN.

That is because after realizing the mistake he committed, man approaches God with fear and trembling, and maybe that is the reason why in the Old Testament God is portrayed as a fear inspiring God in contrast to the God of the New Testament who is portrayed as a love inspiring One. If we speak of science, we refer to man’s insatiable desire and inner imperative to know. Yet man cannot know everything, or at least everything at once, that is why in man’s paradisiacal “history” there was a phase where he was given the interdiction to eat from the tree of knowledge, because, according to Irenaeus of Lugdunum, he was not ready for that type of knowledge. Yet, the fact that he was placed around that tree indicates that at some point the interdiction would have been lifted. That moment would have marked the beginning of man’s eternal progress into the knowledge of God, which includes God’s creation as well, but also into the love of God. In elaborating on the concept of epectasis (the infinite progress in the knowledge and love of God) Gregory of Nyssa actually extends this phenomenon from this life to the life to come (Grgoire de Nysse: 43). This type of advance and this type of knowledge is a divine gift to man, and consequently one can think of it as being revelational, just like religion which, theologically speaking, is revelational.

One will say that it is one thing to talk about belief in religion and another one to talk about belief in science. That might be true, even though I argue that belief remains a ground where the two fields meet each other. First of all I consider important to specify that when this essay discusses the issue of belief in religion the reference is not made to the narrow minded, fundamentalist, sometimes, fanatical application of it in the believer’s daily life and behavior; the reference is made to the meaning of the word itself. Belief, or faith, or credo, in Latin, is basically a psychological investment into something you don’t know much about. In this sense it is close to the meaning of hope. St. Paul has a very interesting and actually sophisticated definition of belief or faith; Faith is the confirmation of those things you hoped for and certainty about those things that you cannot see (Hebrews 11:1).

While the first part of the sentence invites more conversation for clarification of meaning, the second part, while apparently paradoxical (for how can you be certain about what you can’t see?) indicates clearly that we are on the ground of psychological subjectivity. Yet this subjectivity is common to all people, and applied to all fields, not only to religion. That is why if the Cartesian emphasis on reason as a structural element for a definition of man (cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am), became so widely accepted by scientists and theologians alike, an emphasis placed on belief or faith (credo ergo sum, I believe therefore I am) is not at all less appropriate than the first one, less true, and less important for the same definition. An elaborated conversation on the connection between hypothesis, presupposition, assumption and even speculation, so much used and valued in science, and belief, which often is mistakenly considered to belong only to religion, would be most interesting even though it is not in the scope of this essay.

Who is afraid of religion? The first impulse that I have in my attempt to answer this question is: no one. Yet when we talk about religion, we are basically talking about God. Then the question should be: who is afraid of God? Here the response might be very different. Maybe the response is: everyone! Or maybe atheists will say that since they don’t believe God exists, they are not afraid of God. Coming back to religion, according to Simon Glendinning there is a category of people who are afraid of religion, in particular of its survival in our society and these are the ideological secularists (2009: 412). Ideological secularists are a sort of fundamentalist atheists or agnostics that have no tolerance for religion at all. They want it to disappear from human life altogether. Their anxiety or fear is that after a few hundred years of secularization religion not only has not gone away, but has survived, and in many of its aspects today, it is showing a strong revival (2009: 413).

As Diarmuid O’Murchu notices, the dualism (read the antagonism between science and religion), “still stymies our minds and spirits. It divides things up in a superficial and destructive way” (2002: 51). There are still scientists and philosophers who believe that one cannot serve two masters, and since religion in their view is incompatible with science both scientists and theologians need to choose whom to serve (Jacobs 2009: 45). In other words the medieval mentality related to the prevalence of faith over reason (credo ut intelligam) or of reason over faith (intelligo ut credam) radicalized in the 19th century in particular is still inflaming passion, and then intolerance, today. As David Toolan writes, these people belong to both fields, religion and science alike, and are biblical literalists on one hand, and scientific materialists, on the other. According to them science and religion are in an irreconcilable conflict (2001: 241) . If some others still believe in the possibility of the dialogue, for as long as they do not believe in its relevance it seems that the dialogue is a waste of time, energy, and resources. Steven Weinberg is one of them. He does favor the dialogue, but does not believe that it can be constructive. That’s how he put it: “One of the great achievements of science has been if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then, at least, to make it possible for them not to be religious” (2001: 159).

According to Simon Glendinning, based on the familiar story about secularization and decline of religious belief in the West in general and Western Europe in particular, many people think that “the world that has been spreading out from Europe for at least the last three hundred years, has become remarkably secular” (2009: 409-410). In his challenging essay published in The European Legacy, Glendinning argues the opposite, namely that beyond appearances of secularization, the world that has been spreading out from Europe in these at least three hundred years is remarkably religious. The spread of modern atheism and secularism “should not be understood as a triumph of ideological secularism in Western society, but as a mutation within the Graeco-Christian world” (2009: 419). In other words, just like Gustave Flaubert noticed that the European atheism is a Christian atheism, it has the Christian mark on it, so Glendinning argues that it was European Christianity that produced this distinctively Christian secularism (2009: 414, 422), which in fact, in contradistinction to Christianity, is in itself unstable, finite, destabilizable.

In similar terms Ren Girard wrote that even attacks to, and skepticism about Christianity in the modern world are nothing but a byproduct of Christian religion (2009: 20). In even more radical terms T.S. Eliot wrote that Christianity produced a civilization and a heritage (in Europe at least) which is at the root of everything there; that is why the European civilization would not survive if Christianity disappeared altogether there (Semen 2008: 184).

Could we talk about the enduring strengths of Christianity? If we link spirit or human soul to religion, then when Hegel rightly said that the history of the whole world is fundamentally a history of the spirit (Glendinning 2009:415), or when Saint-John Perse said that there is no other history than the one of the soul (Damian 2002: 17), religion appears to be an essential, constitutive element of human history. In this context one may reflect at what Ren Girard said when he wrote that “a good theory about humanity must be based on a good theory about God” (2009: 19), or at Oskar Gruenwalds question particularly significant for our time: Can an age without God have respect for man? (1997: 156).

Compatibility and complementarity between things and actions of the human spirit — re: compatibility between science and religion — must be always evidenced since all things have a natural tendency towards totality and this natural tendency is a structural characteristic of human existence, or of existence in general (Damian 2008: 19). Just like Anoushka von Heuer said that everything relates to everything (1980: 61) and this is confirmed by the systems theory among others, William B. Provine also remarked that when it comes to the relation between the two fields under discussion here, even prominent atheists and agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion (Tipler 1994: 10). One of the scientists that articulated in a very significant way not only the compatibility, but the mutual dependence of science and religion was Albert Einstein. He wrote: “Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding. This source of feeling however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belong the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible by reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” (Toolan 2001: 178). It is in the context of such a philosophy that reputed scientist Frank Tipler said that to keep religion separated from science is bad theology (1994: 6). According to some scientists religion and science are meant to work together because not only both of them have in view as ultimate goal human happiness, but science itself began and begins with a purely theological issue: the problem of evil. Science represents an effort to overcome evil (Toolan 2001: 222).

Religion or theology, and science, both want to explain the world, both are preoccupied with the nature of the ultimate categories of reality. There are cases yet where religion cannot provide answers to questions where science is on its own ground, and vice versa , cases where such questions like the ultimate meaning of existence and purpose (Gruenwald 1997: 163), our place in the given reality of the world, and others, are left to religion or better, to the dialogue between science and religion. In other cases yet some questions are left to theology and physical cosmology at the same time, ( Kelly 2000: 93) as if confirming Tipler’s idea that physics has invaded the territory of theology and that theology has become a branch of physics (1994: 3, 328), a view consistent with Hegel’s who regarded theology as a branch of science.

Scientists are now looking for an ultimate cosmological theory that explains everything. That will be a fulfillment of both science and religion. But it is also possible that, as Brian Green writes, one day science may convince us that there is a limit to scientific explanation (2003: 386) and all the more if religion will be allowed to flourish unfettered by reductionist moorings. (Dilley 2003: 77). In this case, the point is that people, scientists and non-scientists alike will be able to live with both scientific and theological explanations about our life and our world.

The medieval accusation that the Church imposed on people to believe and not look for explanations is false (I am talking here about the compatibility between theology and research) and it came about in the context of the fight for emancipation of the sciences from the control of the Church. In fact, biblically speaking, the Church encourages man’s quest for truth and for knowledge, as Jesus clearly emphasized the need for the right type of knowledge, based on which one can inherit eternal life: And the eternal life means to know You, the only true God, and to know Jesus Christ, whom You sent (John 17, 3).

As mentioned earlier, Gregory of Nyssa, one of the greatest theologians of the Early Church, developed the concept of epectasis which implies continuous progress in the knowledge of God, and that includes God’s creation. As one author remarked, “only the observation of nature, only scientific research could give us a true picture of who God was really like” (Tipler 1994: 322), even though the exhaustive character of this affirmation can be theologically disputed. In fact the Church had at all times theologians who were scientists as well, such as Basil the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Teilhard du Chardin, John Polkinghorne, to only name a few. When it comes to Thomas Aquinas, great physicist and great theologian, Tipler writes: “Aquinas’s five proofs of God’s existence are absolutely dependent on Aristotelian physics and they require a thorough knowledge of his physics. Aquinas, in fact, was one of the leading scholars of Aristotelian physics of his day and it was primarily Aquinas who was responsible for the general acceptance of Aristotelian physics throughout Europe” (1994: 329). This is like indeed both science and theology are looking for God. And philosophy as well. That is why Hegel believed that the object of philosophy is God, that philosophy is a rational theology and a divine office that works for the quest of truth (Damian 2008:18). According to Hegel’s metaphysics, reality is the result of a historical process which has as ultimate end the understanding of the essence of existence, or world spirit (Weltgeist), or the Absolute. This is consistent with both Christ’s promise of the eternal life based on the knowledge of God, and with Gregory of Nyssa’s epectatic progress of man’s spirit.

With his preoccupation with the Absolute, common to both Theology and Philosophy, Hegel, as Ioan Gh. Savin put it, turned his metaphysics into the “movement axis of the most formidable rationalist system that human thinking had ever known” (1940: 225). According to the same author, Hegel gave back to religion its intellectual and rational character, reintegrating the notion of God in the range of the philosophical concepts and not only placing it on the top of these concepts’ hierarchy, but also making all others dependent on it (1940: 225). It is in this mind frame that Tipler wrote that the key concepts of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition are now scientific concepts, that from the physics’ point of view theology is nothing but physical cosmology based on the assumption that life as a whole is immortal (1994:17), reason why theology is now part of science (1994: 339), and reason why theological research in the 21st century will require a PhD in particle physics (1994: 329)! Here is his argument: “The universe is defined to be the totality of all that exists, the totality of reality. Thus, by definition, if God exists, He/She is either the universe, or part of it. The goal of physics is understanding the ultimate nature of reality. If God is real, physicists will eventually find Him/Her. I shall argue in this book that physics may have, in fact, found Him/Her. He/She is actually everywhere. We have not seen Him/Her only because we have not looked at the universe on a sufficiently large scale, and have not looked for the Person in the machine” (1994: 3).

As science works with hypothesis as a common method it is clear that it makes approximations, assumptions (Green 2003: 361) and speculations, as there are many questions it cannot answer, such as the one regarding the beginning of time (about which it cannot tell anything sure) (Toolan 2001: 174). As Tipler notices, science can only give “probably true” answers (1994: 7). But scientists believe in the possibility of existence of the object of their investigation — the compatibility between science and belief. If they will not find what they are looking for they might be disappointed, but that does not invalidate the belief they had while working on the issue. That is why Stephen Hawking said that a scientific theory is “a set of rules that relate the quantity in the model to observations that we make, and that it exists only in our minds, it does not have any other reality” (1988: 9). Sometimes scientific theories are based on “imaginary abstract concepts” (OMurchu 2002: 45), as Paul Davis writes, which brings us to what we commonly call belief, assumption, hope, even intuition. In even clearer terms, Stephen Hawking explains: “Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis. You can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory” (1988: 10). It is agreed by scientists that “explaining everything in life and in the universe, up to the deepest constitutive structures or ultimate transformations is the greatest challenge for science, or simply even impossible (Green 2003: 384), and all the more since science is meaningfree (Prost 2002: 48) and does not deal with this most significant human question. Currently physicists are starting to explore the pre-big-bang state of the universe. They are creating and developing theories whose elements, paradoxically, they still have to understand (Green 2003: 418). In other words they are placing unknown elements into a theory or a system in the belief, hope that they will eventually know and understand. Just like in religion where God is the Great Unknown, but He is out there, ready to be explored, approached, both by way of reason and of heart. The scientists adventure with knowledge and understanding – which might be an infinite process – is similar to the theological concept of theosis, deification, where one progresses in the knowledge of, and communion with God eternally without ever exhausting it.

By having science deal with issues of metaphysics, one author remarks, it tells us how to go to heaven (not only what heaven is), thus getting into the territory of belief and theology (Tipler 1994: 8). Assuming that there might be a limit to our ability to understand and that the universe will continue to remain unexplained in many of its aspects, scientists, Brian Green believes, “will have to accept that certain features of the universe are the way they are because of happenstance, accident, of divine choice” (2003: 385). Consequently the hypothesis of God’s existence is not contrary to the scientific method. Maybe that is why many scientists were religious people as well, in both senses, in the sense of belief in God and in the sense of applying the belief in their research. For example Darwin believed (had no proof) that “the process of random mutation followed by selection and proliferation of the fitter variants, necessarily would lead to a smooth, gradual evolutionary process” (OMurchu 2002: 95). Also, speaking of belief in the other sense, the belief in God, as William Provine testifies, in the 1920s many, probably most of evolutionists were religious. They believed in a non-physical force that drives the process of evolution, and from this belief to identifying that force with God was only a small step (Tipler 1994: 9).

Sometimes, what seemed to be a world-shaking scientific discovery, like the Newtonian one, later turned out to have been “thoroughly parochial” as Brian Green puts it, as scientists realized that beneath that discovery a mind-blogging world lies just waiting to be explored. Yet with solid faith scientists are relentlessly hunting down the elusive elements of the universe that they want to decipher (Green 2003: 386). If such is the case with scientific discoveries, it seems logical that science leaves room for faith in whatever lies beyond the “parochial.” There are scientists who did not believe in God based on the divine revelation in the sacred book called Bible or Holy Scriptures, yet who believe in God based on the Book of Nature, not written by human hand but by God’s hand (Tipler 1994: 337). In such a case, when it comes to the compatibility between science and religion, what is relevant is the belief in God and not the source of that belief.

In conclusion, a scientist, by definition cannot be dogmatic. He or she has to be flexible, tolerant, and allow for limitations and for otherness, for difference. A true scientist has to put everything into equation, including the unknown or the uncertain. Whichever way one considers religion to be, one has to recognize that it is a serious matter and it needs to be placed into that equation even if only for the sake of the method itself. That is the way of integration, of collaboration, the only one to go forward successfully. Stephen Hawking addressed the need of de-dogmatization of science, of flexibility and open-mindedness when he wrote: “Like Galileo, scientists today have to be prepared to step outside the mainstream, out beyond the currently accepted ideas. This is the way you make progress” (Boslough 1985:33). That reminds one of the wisdom and truth of Einstein’s assertion: “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”

References
Boslough, John. 1985. Stephen Hawking’s Universe: an Introduction to the Most Remarkable Scientist of Our Time. New York: Quil/William Marrow.
Damian, Theodor. 2002. Theological and Spiritual Dimensions of Icons According to St. Theodore of Studion, Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press.
odor. 2008. Filosofie si Literatura: O Hermeneutica a Provocarii Metafizice, Bucharest: Ed. Fundatiei Romania de Maine.
Dilley, Stephen Craig. 2003. Science, Religion and a Culture of Life. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. Vol. XV, Nr. 1/2.
Girard, Ren. 2009. On War and Apocalypse. First Things, Nr. 195, Aug./Sept.
Glendinning, Simon. 2009. Japheth’s World: the Rise of Secularism and the Revival of Religion today. The European Legacy. Vol. 14, Nr. 4, July.
Green, Brian. 2003. The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory, New York: W.W. Norton.
Grgoire de Nysse. 1982. La cration de lhomme. Introd. par Jean-Yves Guillaumin et A.G. Hamman, trad. par Jean-Yves Guillaumin, col. Les Pres dans la foi. Paris: Descle de Brouwer.
Gruenwald, Oskar. 1997. The Quest for Transcendence. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. Vol. IX, Nr. 1/2.
Hawking, Stephen. 1988. A Brief History of Time: From Big Bang to Black Holes, New York: Bantam Books.
Heuer, Anoushka von. 1980. Le huitime jour ou La dette dAdam, Geneva: Ed. Jean-Luc de Rougemont.
Jacobs, Alan. 2009. Worlds Made of Words: Scholarship and Community in the Modern West (book review). First Things, Nr. 195, Aug./Sept.
Kelly, A.B. 2002. ”The Search for Meaning in Philosophy and Theology: Hegel to Balthazar and Beyond”. Labyrinth. An International Journal for Philosophy, Feminist Theory and Cultural Hermeneutics. Vol. 2, Winter 2000.
O’Murchu, Diarmuid. 2002. Evolutionary Faith. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books.
Prost, Gilbert R. 2002. The Liberal Arts, Language and Transcendence. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. Vol. XIV, Nr. 1/2.
Savin, Ioan Gh. 1940. Apologetica. Existenta lui Dumnezeu. Proba ontologica, I, Bucuresti: Tipografia Cartilor Bisericesti.
Semen, Petre. 2008. Atitudinea Bisericii fata de problemele sociale actuale: integrare globalizare, ateism, secularizare, trafic de persoane – o mare provocare pentru Biserica si societate la inceput de mileniu III. Teologie Ortodoxa (Analele stiintifice ale Universitatii A.I. Cuza, Iasi), Tom XIII Iasi, Romania: Ed. Univ. A.I. Cuza.
Tipler, Frank. 1994. Physics of Immortality, New York: Doubleday.
Toolan, David. 2001. At Home in the Cosmos. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Boo

Professor Theodor Damian
The Metropolitan College of New York

Ion Muresan: Colind

Un Colind de Ion Mure?an
Fi?ier:Muresan Ion.JPG http://vasilegogea.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/un-colind-de-ion-muresan/

Dumitru Radu Popa: Moschee da, moschee ba! Articol aparut miercuri, 15 septembrie 2010, in revista Cultura, sectiunea Cultura politica

Cnd a teoretizat The Crash of Civilizations, Samuel B. Huntington habar nu avea c?, n anul 2010, ciocnirea se va desf??ura, n toat? amploarea, chiar n downtown Manhattan , la o arunc?tur? de b?? de celebrul ground zero. Am scris acum vreo cteva luni despre perspectiva construirii unei moschei, n cadrul unui mare Centru Cultural Islamic, exact n apropierea locului unde, n Septembrie 2001, au fost distruse de extremismul islamic cele dou? turnuri ale lui World Trade Center . Dac? atunci dezbaterea, orict de nfocat?, p?stra mai mult un caracter local, ntre timp ea a c?p?tat un caracter na?ional, e prezent? pe toate canalele mediei, grupuri de pro ?i contra, bine p?zite de poli?ie pentru ca lucrurile s? nu degenereze, se confrunt? aproape zilnic la fa?a locului. Si, a?a cum se ntmp?` mai ntotdeauna cu un subiect care ia amploare na?ional?, chiar ?i alegerile din noiembrie vor fi influen?ate de acel da sau ba n privin?a construirii moscheii la ground zero. Citeste mai departe:
http://revistacultura.ro/nou/2010/09/moschee-da-moschee-ba/

Virgil Nemoianu.jpgVirgil Nemoianu
Omul lui Dumnezeu

n iulie 1990 am ajuns la New York si Washington, D.C. cu o dubl? misiune din partea Consiliului Director al Romniei libere: s? discut situa?ia critic? a ziarului, n contextul politic dat, cu personalit??i ale vie?ii politice americane (o tipografie urma s? fie cump?rat? si livrat? ziarului de americani dar nimeni nu voia ca aceast? tipografie s? cad? n minile comuni?tilor, deci garan?ii solide erau cerute ziarului n acest sens); mai aveam apoi datoria de a intervieva personalit??i ale exilului romnesc din SUA ?i descifra ce anume n?elegeau acestea din ceea ce se petrecea n Romnia. Eram publicist comentator n sec?ia cultural? a Romniei libere ?i f?ceam parte din echipa care preluase ziarul n 23 decembrie 1989.

Vineri, 27 iulie 1990, n jur de opt diminea?a, mi-am luat r?mas bun de la Mary, so?ia lui Vladimir Tism?neanu, care m? g?zduise peste noapte la Washington, D.C. Trebuia s? reperez n grab? sta?ia de metro, ?i de acolo, cu linia ro?ie, s? ajung n Brookland, la Catholic University of America unde m? a?tepta profesorul Virgil Nemoianu. Dup? zece sta?ii de metro, fugind spre ie?ire, am z?rit dincolo de por?i o siluet? care nu putea fi dect a lui, fizionomic mai ar?ta ca un exponent al Europei R?s?ritene. A fost complicat s? ies din metro. Cartela electronic? indica c? nu pusesem destui bani, mi lipseau c?iva cen?i. In fine, cu gra?ie, profesorul a rezolvat dilema ?i dup? ce m-a recuperat dintre gratiile electronice m-a condus n biroul s?u de la facultate. De fapt era biroul s?u administrativ, pe atunci era prorectorul universit??ii – cu o secretar? c?reia n loc sa i spun hi i-am spus bye-bye pentru c? nu aveam habar de englez?. A? fi vrut s? vorbim despre teoria literaturii, despre literatur? comparat?, abia terminasem volumul doi al Civiliza?iei romanului, doar ce trimis n tipografie de editura Cartea Romneasc?, dar nu era vreme de a?a ceva iar timpul era foarte pu?in. Politicul, ce se petrecea n Romnia dup? alegerile din mai ?i mineriada din iunie au acaparat discu?ia care a devenit un interviu publicat n ziar curnd dup? aceea. Notam n caietul de c?l?torie c? profesorul a fost interesat ?i chiar consternat de ceea ce i relatam despre revolu?ie, despre diziden?ii din vil?, de cei cu protec?ie de la Moscova ?i despre cei chiar cu voie de la st?pnire. Profesorul mai era interesat de situa?ia prezent? a sindicatelor, care ncercau s? se reorganizeze dup? revolu?ie, de ceea ce s-a petrecut la mineriad? etc. Dedesubturi politice amare. Am n?eles repede cit de dificil era pentru el s? vad?, s? n?eleag? de la o asemenea distan?? multe din nuan?ele feomenelor politice de adncime din Romnia. La rndul s?u, profesorul s-a plns ca scrie pu?in, c? func?ia de prorector i acapareaz? cea mai mare parte de timp, mi-a vorbit de duritatea vie?ii americane, precum ?i a faptului c? exilul romnesc din SUA nu a produs c?r?i notabile, m?car un roman al exilului. Care ar fi fost att de important, de necesar! Poate l scrii dumneata, a spus profesorul, dac? r?mi aici.

Nu aveam atunci absolut nici o inten?ie s? r?mn n Statele Unite. Eram ferm convins? c? trebuie s? m? ntorc acas? — ceea ce am ?i f?cut pentru a ajuta la instalarea democra?iei depline n Romnia. Naivitate care mi s-a spulberat la cteva luni dup? aceast? convorbire. La plecare, profesorul m-a condus la sta?ia de metro. Am cobort la Union Station ?i de aici, pe jos, m-am ndreptat spre The National Forum Foundation unde m? a?tepta Juliana Pilon pentru un alt interviu. Tot timpul drumului mi-a rulat n minte fraza despre exilul romnesc american care nu produsese un roman al exilului. Fraza aceasta nu mi-a dat pace ani ntregi, pn? cnd, eu ns?mi n exil, am scris Via?a pe fug?, roman publicat n 1997. i datorez, ntr-un sens, profesorului Virgil Nemoianu scrierea acestei c?r?i pe care unii comentatori au considerat-o romanul exilului romnesc n America.

Un alt impuls catalitic se leag? de volumul doi al Civiliza?iei romanului. Eram deja la New York. Via?a mea — extrem de dur?. Primisem patru exemplare ale c?r?ii n prim?vara lui 1992. Pe unul l-am trimis profesorului Nemoianu. Nu dup? mult? vreme am primit o scrisoare datat? august 1, 1992, scrisoare care pentru mine, mai ales n zilele grele ale nceputului american, a nsemnat mult. Profesorul aprecia realizarea erudit?, de ampl? respira?ie ?i ?i exprima convigerea c? acest studiu va contribui la ns?n?to?irea (ct de ct!) a atmosferei intelectuale din Romnia. Din nefericire acest lucru nu s-a ntmplat n Romnia. Dar s-a ntmplat c? aceste rnduri mi-au conferit n mare m?sur? entuziasmul si energia necesare preg?tirii edi?iei a doua ap?rute n 2008.

Virgil Nemoiau a fost benefic n existen?a mea. De?i ne-am v?zut o singur? dat? ?i atunci pe fug?, cumva am dialogat dincolo de acest moment. Poate c? nu ntmpl?tor ne-am ntlnit n medita?ii conceptuale asem?toare pe teme ale existen?ei ?i teoriei literare. n A Theory of the Secondary (1990) de pild?, Virgil Nemoianu discut? romantismul trziu ca fiind caracterizat de faptul c? idealurile romantice nalte timpurii de a regenera specia uman? r?mn doar idealuri; dar n acest romantism trziu el descifreaz? efortul de a mijloci sau mp?ca asemenea idealuri nalte cu valorile tradi?ionale socioculturale ?i realitatea existen?ei n diferite spa?ii ale lumii occidentale. Conform lui Virgil Nemoianu, aceste eforturi au avut ca rezultat reducerea, mic?orarea naltelor idealuri romantice printr-un proces cultural numit the triumph of imperfection. n volumul Imperfection and Defeat. The Role of Aesthetic Imagination in Human Society (2006) literatura ?i esteticul n general sunt v?zute drept agen?i ai moder?rii ?i conserv?rii, dar ?i catalizatori ai schimb?rii. Triumful imperfec?iunii (The Triumph of Imperfection) nseamn? o n?elegere a istoriei ?i prezentului bazat? pe ac?iunea sfin?eniei. n Timpul celor ale?i (edi?ie integral?, 1999) roman ap?rut ini?ial ciopr?it de cenzur? n 1988 la editura Cartea romneasc? cu titlul schimbat Totdeauna toamna, unul dintre personajele mele, teoretician al literaturii, pe nume Vizanti, vorbe?te despre triste?ea des?vr?irii ?i fericirea imperfec?iunii n universuri umane paralele. Vizanti a scris un eseu, citit ?i comentat de alt personaj central. Unul din capitolele eseului lui Vizanti se intituleaz? chiar De la triste?ea des?vr?irii la fericirea imperfec?iunii. Iar Timpul celor ale?i – salvarea prin art? ?i credin?? ntr-o lume totalitar? care l refuza pe Dumnezeu – ar fi trebuit s? aibe ca motto un paragraf din A doua Epistol? Soborniceasc? a lui Petru (2:9): Voi ns? snte?i o semin?ie aleas?, o preo?ie mp?r?teasc?, un neam sfnt, un popor pe care Dumnezeu ?i l-a c?tigat ca s? fie al Lui, ca s? vesti?i puterile minunate ale Celui ce v-a chemat din ntuneric la lumina Sa minunat?.

Virgil Nemoianu este unul dintre pu?inii teoreticieni ai literaturii din lumea de azi care reconecteaz? esteticul la fundamentele primordiale ale divinului. Deschiderea operei c?tre transcenden??, modul n care religiile structureaz? rela?ia cu transcenden?a, n cre?tinism frumosul fiind canalul cel mai important n acest proces, al comunic?rii dintre transcenden?? si imanen?? sau dintre Dumnezeu ?i umanitate, constituie unele dintre cele mai interesante pagini ale studiului Imperfection and Defeat, pagini aflate n special n capitolul The Dialectic of Literature and Religion. Concluzia este c? if opening to transcendence is a central trait of humanness, then aesthetic activity is the zone most closely neighboring the religious one. Eliminarea dimensiunii transcendente din fiin?a uman? este, pentru autor, infantil?. ?coala modern? a absen?ei ?i deconstruc?iei, a scepticismului radical, tradi?ia teologiei negative, abandonarea divinului au in final ca rezultat un alt tip de discurs conectat cu sacralitatea.

Toate aceste idei m? rentorc la omul concret pe care l-am ntlnit cndva, care mi-a influen?at via?a, f?r? ca el s? ?tie, ?i n care am perceput bun?tate ?i generozitate. Dumnezeu doar ?i face lucrarea n real prin oameni.
MR
(Publicat in Revista Vatra, nr. 5/6 2010)

Reteaua literara: Boris Marian despre Valery Oisteanu
Eugene Ionesco Centenary by Valery Oisteanu?
Evergreen review poem by Valery Oisteanu?
Omega 7 (108pg-113pg) – 5 poems by Valery Oisteanu?
O proza poetica de Valery Oisteanu in The Bicycle Review?

Menajerie
de Max Blecher
(Corp Transparent)

Iata-ma-s cainele tau cu blana de franjuri
Si dinti de sabii sa te musc, sa te latru
Iata-ma-s sarpele tau ca sa te ispitesc
Cu marul soarelui sa te otravesc
Iata-ma-s rinocerul tau in tunica de clown
Jongland cu popice ca sa te fac sa razi
Iata-ma-s girafa ta. Majuscula
In textul zilei, citeste-ma A
Iata-ma-s vulturul din asfintit
Cu inima mea in cioc aprinsa ca un lampion
.
 
 Menagerie from Transparent Corpse(1934)         
   
     Here I am, your dog with fringed fur  
     and sword-like teeth to bite you, to bark at you
     Here I am, your serpent  to tempt you
     With  the apple of the Sun to poison you
     Here I am, your rhino in a clowns frock
     Juggling bowling pins to make you laugh
     Here I am your giraffe. A capital letter
     In the days copy, read me as an A
     Here I am your eagle in the dusk,
     My heart in my beak burning as a lampion.
 
Eternitate
de Max Blecher
Pasii ne cunosc abisul
Trupul ne plimba cerul
Furtuna pierde bucati de carne
Tot mai vaga tot mai slaba
Este un inceput albastru
In acest peisaj terestru
Si altul razbunator
Ca un deget taiat
Vezi doar ce femeie se rostogoleste
Ca un fus
Si copiaza delta ei
Pe delta apelor.
 
Eternity
by Max Blecher 
Transparent Corpse(1934)
  
     Our steps know our abyss
     Our body walks our sky
     The storm looses chunks of meat
     Increasingly vague and weak
     There is a blue beginning
     In this  terrestrial landscape
     And another one, vengeful
     Like a severed finger
     All you see is the woman rolling
     Like a spindle
     Imprinting a copy of her delta
     Over waters delta
 
Translated from the Romanian by Valery Oisteanu

Serban Chelariu: o noua expozitie

SERBAN CHELARIU — PAINTINGS
Piermont Flywheel Gallery: November 19-December 6
Reception: Sunday November 22nd, 2-5 PM.
 

Older Posts »

Weblog

Toate drepturile rezervate Weblog.ro

X