The Pressure of De-Ruralization in Marin Predaʼs Post-Thaw Novels Alex GOLDIȘ

Proustian-driven

It has been widely observed that in Romania (and perhaps in other semi-peripheral contexts) the issue of rural literature can only be understood within the larger framework of the criticsʼ projects to orientate or ajdust internal production according to so-called Western norms. An overview of the debates on rural literature in the first part of the 20th century is telling for understanding the pressures felt by national literary markets to achieve the status of "European literatures" or to become "contemporary" -in other words, to arrive at the the so-called Greenwich meridian of literary standards, as Pascale Casanova 1 coins it.
The interwar period, a time when the debates on the chances of the Romanian literature to surpass this belatedness intensified, is characteristic of the growing skepticism toward ruralism. The most influential critic of the period, E. Lovinescu, builds his project upon the assumption that the modernity of the Romanian literature depends on writersʼ capacity of leaving behind rural inspiration. His Istoria literaturii române contemporane [History of Contemporary Romanian Literature] gives voice to the idea -very frequented by other literary critics as well -that the development of the Romanian novel is endangered by its predilection towards archaic or "underdevelopped" social scenery. The fact that rural characters are trapped psychologically in the realm of instincts, Lovinescu posits, alienates Romanian literature from modernity 2 . Lovinescuʼs claims are just the tip of the iceberg in a cultural context where the idea of the incompatibility between ruralism and literary modernism is deeply rooted. Mihail Ralea's 1927 influential article "De ce nu avem roman" [Why Donʼt we Have Novels?], 3 although does not dismiss rural imagination, conditions the development of the modern novel on the aspirations of the urban bourgeoisie. In the same manner, Camil Petrescu's Proustian-driven poetics excludes from the outset the rural novel from the experimental devices employed by the French novelist. 4 However, my paper's focus is not on the interwar tackling of the rural literature issue, but on its postwar aftermath. More to the point, I intend to look at the case of Marin Predaʼs literary evolution by highlighting the underlying tensions between ruralism and urbanism in the Romanian intelellectual field. I will point out that, even if Preda was praised as the most important rural writer of the post-war era, his post-1950ʼs work (and by work I understand both novels and their paratexts) displays an internalization of the critique of ruralism.
The argument I am trying to make is perhaps althemore surprising as the first volume of Moromeții, published in 1955, was celebrated as one of the most important achievements of Romanian literature to that day. Predaʼs rural novel was seen as a piece that could solve several controversies of the Romanian literary system. Its huge popularity, both among readers and literary experts, both among those who promoted socialist realism and those who tried to undermine it, can be rendered at several levels: firstly, the novel was read as an up-to-date reaction against Romanian Sămănătorism or Neosămănătorism: while, with the exception of Rebreanuʼs novels, most rural imagery could be labelled as idealistic, Predaʼs Moromeții [The Morometes] depicts a community where class struggle and labor inequity become family issues. Secondly, the book seemed to solve one of the most pervasive debates on Romanian novel of the interwar period: while, as mentioned above, a series of writers or literary critics like E. Lovinescu, Mihail Ralea or Camil Petrescu argued that the modern novel was incompatible with rural psychology, Marin Predaʼs Moromeții became the living proof of G. Călinescuʼs contention that the the peasant soul could provide fertile material for speculation. 5 Thirdly, contrary to what the post 1970 reception of the novel maintained, the book was seen as the big hit of the socialist realism in Romania. I have already demonstrated elsewhere 6 that the first edition of Moromeții contained passages that allowed socialist realist critics to read the novel as a form of criticism against capitalist order.

Ruralism as Ideological Hijack
However, when one looks at Marin Predaʼs career, the first volume of Moromeții seems to be the first and arguably his last rural novel. While the Moromeții saga continues in Moromeții II, in Marele singuratic and slightly in Delirul, none of these novels are preoccupied with reflecting the ruralism issue from the point of view of the peasantry per se. The only novel that strives to build a monography of the Romanian village is Moromeții II. However: while still maintaining Siliștea-Gumești as the main stage of debate, the novel restricts the peasantsʼ voices to that of Ilie Moromete, whose role in the economy of the narrative is also diminished. Instead, the main floor belongs to Niculae Moromete, Ilieʼs son, sent by the authorities to implement the incipient mechanisms of collectivization. Although the author's point of view remains neutral under the pretense of Bakthtinian dialogical prose, the novel expresses the Marxization of the 1950ʼs village as an ideological hijack: rather than being an active agent of the process, the peasantry is the object of a gang of villains, orchestrated themselves by the central authorities. By putting forward the idea that peasantry does not play any role in the Marxization of the Romanian society, Preda not only oversimplifies the reality that the novel promises to convey, but also distorts the image of the peasantry during the incipient installation of socialism: Ouăbei, Mantaroșie, Isosică and the others are presented not as representatives of the peasants, but as villains or political activists (or both) -disguised as peasants. I will not insist on the demonstration, the satirical features of these characters have been perceived by most of Predaʼs critics.
If the rural nature of Predaʼs second volume of Moromeții is still open to debate, in the other novels the village is purely decorative, when not entirely absent. In Marele singuratic, Predaʼs other novel centered around Nicolaeʼs biography -a sort of follow-up to Moromeții II -, rural scenes merely serve as a background for the existentialist turmoil of the character.
In fact, the 1962 Risipitorii already marks the complete departure from the rural novel. It is clear that the book represents a cornerstone in Predaʼs career if we take into consideration the fact that the novel is rewritten and published three times before 1970. Predaʼs confessions do not leave any doubt about the high significance of Risipitorii, as the book is presented to the public not as another novel, but as a major career shift. Usually self contained in making remarks about his own books, Preda cannot over-emphasize the importance of this novel. Risipitorii is allegedly his first book as a professional writer, "a book so much different from the others in every aspect", the author of Moromeții awkwardly writes as early as 1961 7 . In another interview that prefaces the publishing of the novel, this strong statement is further supported by the claim that "this book is closer to what I tried to express in my literature than the novels or short stories with rural subjects, like Desfășurarea, Îndrăzneala, Ferestre întunecate, except Moromeții" 8 . Moreover, the writer draws attention to the dismissal of the rural perspective: "Although this new novel contains scenes with peasants, they are, so to say, anti-rural, conceived outside the rural perspective, through urban lens. The rural point of view, the explanation of facts specific to this social medium are totally absent", 9 Preda writes. Another confession, from 1970, insists on finally finding his own voice through Risipitorii: "In spite of the tiring process of rewriting, I didnʼt feel any fatigue as I had the strong feeling that I was conquering a style of my own, of my own direct thinking, different from the one in Moromeții, where my thoughts were expressed indirectly, by the mediation of the peasants", 10 Preda writes.
These statements not only outline the importance of his arguably most feeble novel, but also mark Predaʼs intention to reinvent himself outside Moromeții and even outside rural perspective.

Predaʼs Rebranding Outside Ruralist Frame
It is hard to say whether this process of de-ruralization represents an individual choice or it was triggered by the system constraints of the 1960ʼs: however, it is almost impossible not to notice that this reinvention meets the standards of the post-Thaw period when, on the one hand, the revival of interwar modernist values, and, on the other hand, a sense of renewal and of reconnecting to Western or European culture were on the public agenda of Romanian writers. Although never expressed as such because of censorship, the 1960ʼs represented a radical departure from socialist realism norms in favor of an elitist and high-end culture. Predaʼs departure from his early works -with the relative exception of Moromeții -represents a disguised public declaration of break up from socialist realism. Or, with the exception of Ana Roșculeț, all his works on rural life resonated with the norms of Stalinist prose. In his most quoted 1970 article on the "obsessive decade", 11 Preda openly condemns the dogmatism of the 1950ʼs literary system. This revival of the modernist interwar culture also equated, unfortunately, with the revival of some of the most persistent stereotypes of the Romanian literary system, among which the superiority of urban prose over rural subjects. Although Lovinescuʼs strong urbanist bias was never fully embraced after the resurfacing of his writings in the 1960ʼs, Cosmin Borza has already pointed out the postwar criticsʼ tendency to sublimate ruralism by endowing exceptional rural characters with noble titles exceeding their class: the peasants of Sadoveanu's Baltagul are tagged by Alexandru Paleologuʼs readings as princes-paysans, while Nicolae Manolescuʼs Vitoria Lipan is an outstanding figure inasmuch as she is a representative of the bourgeoisie. 12 The rejection of socialist realism also equated with the search for experiment, after almost two decades of practising traditional realist formulas. One of the authors most sensitive to ideological change, Marin Preda must have felt that neither the subject nor the technique of the first volume of Moromeții fit the emerging cultural values of the 1960ʼs, that praised the dialogue with contemporary foreign formulas and intellectualist topics. Predaʼs major career shift comes from the acknowledgement that if an author of rural literature wants to stay relevant in the new context, she must either turn to formal experiment or give up the reflection on rural medium altogether. The first road is actually tested by Marin Preda in Moromeții II, where several scenes of rural life are depicted in the defamiliarized manner of Faulkner or even magical realism. Jay Watson stated that "what Faulkner offers to disadvantaged writers along the rural peripheries of the world republic of letters is above all access, via formal inventiveness, to total, literary and aesthetic autonomy for their works". 13 These upto-date literary devices, best expressed in Romanian postwar context by the rural prose of Ștefan Bănulescu, Sorin Titel or D.R. Popescu, prove to be incompatible with the realistdriven prose of Marin Preda. The magical realist passages from Moromeții II -as the story of Sița who is cherished as a saint of Siliștea Gumești for becoming pregnant without being touched by a man -is quickly derailed in a satirical manner: her playing a saint is nothing but a scheme for finding a father for her unborn child.
The other alternative, that of de-ruralization, seems to be more adjusted to the values of the Romanian post-Thaw culture: it allowed Preda to rebrand himself as in intellectualist figure both against socialist realist political frames of the 1950ʼs and against his ruralist identity. One of the major cliches of Moromețiiʼs reception lies in the juxtaposing of his authorial stance with that of the main characters: in other words, Ilie Morometeʼs rural and somewhat archaic perspective on reality was often read as an ideological position of the author himself: in an 1966 article, Nicolae Manolescu states that "without being Moromete-like from the outset, Marin Preda ends up by imitating his character and acts like him. The profound Moromete spirit ('moromețianismʼ) of Predaʼs works lie in this subtle transfer: the author lends from his hero gestures, words, his very way of being." 14 Or, Marin Predaʼs above mentioned rejection of being identified with the vantage point of his rural characters points to this effort of reframing. Predaʼs authorial voice couldnʼt afford to be mistaken with that of his fictional peasants as he claimed that peasantry was no longer (if it ever was) a progressive class due to the socialist mass industrialization already occurring in the late 1950s. The fact that the writer tends to avoid rural scenery hasn't gone unnoticed by Predaʼs contemporaries. In the famous series of 1970 articles in "Contemporanul" -most of them republished in Imposibila întoarcere -, the writer answers the somehow uncomfortable question of Adrian Păunescu: Why does the author of Moromeții is not interested anymore in depicting the life of the 1970ʼs peasant?". Predaʼs answer avoids any motivation linked to the literary style, focusing instead on sociological explanations: rural life cannot serve as means of inspiration anymore as the peasantry itself has undergone serious transformations through industrialization or urbanization: "What type of peasant do you have in mind, since most of them sleep in shacks at the numerous construction sites in Bucharest or other cities and fail to return in the village for months?", 15 the writer answers.
Last but not least, the rebranding as a writer of urban fiction had the advantage of meeting the Westernizing literary canon of the post-Thaw era. Risipitorii, Moromeții II, Marele singuratic or Intrusul were seen by most of the critics as sites of formal and thematic innovation, where Marin Preda engages in invisible dialogues with major european figures: Eugen Simion reads Risipitorii as a test of Predaʼs "acknowledgement of contemporary techniques", 16 while Moromeții II is seen as a direct consequence of Predaʼs reading (and sometimes translating) Western prose. Al. Piru praises the philosophical attitude toward reality, based on some form of nausée" in Risipitorii, 17 Marele singuratic is read by Valeriu Cristea as an existentialist novel, 18 while S. Damian engages in an outright parallel of Camusʼs The Stranger and Predaʼs Intrusul. 19 The examples may continue.

Conclusions
To make just a few conclusive remarks: it is difficult to say for certain whether Predaʼs novels triggered this intertextual reading or if the inflation of Western intellectualist references created a pressure on his writing. What can be stated, however, is that Preda visibly rebrands himself -in interviews or confessions -as an explorer of several modernist formulas. Proust, Kafka, Hemingway, Steinbeck, Camus are frequent in the paratexts of his novels. As it is certain that starting with Risipitorii, all his works avoid the vantage point of rural characters in favour of giving voice to intellectuals tortured by sudden revelations (as in Marele singuratic) or baring the harsh consequences of their decisions, as in Intrusul, Delirul or Cel mai iubit dintre pământeni. The de-ruralizing of Predaʼs prose also coincides with an intellectulist turn: Predaʼs characters, intellectuals or artists themselves, are engaged in existential or even philosophical debates on the impact of history upon the life of the individual -with full emphasis on abstract mattersor explore a full range of attitudes against totalitarian regimes, from compromise or retreat to subversion.
The essaystic nature of the later novels, where the author has the tendency to cover the discourse of his characters with considerable displays of ideas, was noticed by several critics. Perhaps the climax of this intellectualist turn can be identified in Cel mai iubit dintre pământeni, the novel where the voice of Victor Petrini -this time, a philosopher in his own right -is not only virused by the authorial stance but tends to replace it altogether. At a time of growing resentment against the Ceaușescu regime, parallel to the system's relative tolerance to subversive works, Preda wants to be acknowledged not only as a public intellectual figure endowed with a philosophical system like the one deployed by Petrini in the novel, but also as a strong opponent of the system. It is what made him the superstar of the late Ceaușescu period, as recently pointed out by Ștefan Baghiu and Costi Rogozanu 20 . This symptomatic transposition between the identity of the novelist and that of his main character has been invoked by Monica Lovinescu, although perhaps not in the sense that Preda would have expected: "To the author of Cel mai iubit dintre pământeni, who avoids the tabu of the Ceaușescu regime, I prefer the main character of the novel, the author of Era ticăloșilor", Monica Lovinescu asserted in her 1980 review 21 . Thus, it it not an overstatement to say that Cel mai iubit dintre pământeni can be chronicled as the last stage of Marin Predaʼs reframing as both an intellectualist and a dissenting public figure.