First editions

The magazine's first period was tied to the cultural life of what was back then the Kingdom of Romania. Ramuri was centered on Craiova city, as a regional satellite of the more influential Sămănătorul magazine—itself put out from Bucharest by Nicolae Iorga. Constantin Șaban Făgețel and D. Tomescu once described themselves the regional magazine's "only two" founders,^[1] though N. Bănescu is generally mentioned as their partner.^[2] As cultural sociologist Z. Ornea remarks, Ramuri was planned as a separate venture in mid-1905, at a time when Sămănătorul and its traditionalist ideology were experiencing their "zenith". However, by the time it was actually ready for print, Iorga's doctrines were being "overshadowed"; Ramuri therefore "had the misfortune of long-surviving the current that had overseen its birth".^[3] It appeared from 5 December 1905 until May 1947, with interruptions, changes in publication location and frequency. At first, it was monthly, then in 1908–1910 a bimonthly, appearing weekly in October 1910–May 1911, and again bimonthly in 1912–1914 (in 1913, it was subtitled "Illustrated literary magazine").^[2]

Ramuri was led over the years by a committee, the composition of which appeared in a square on the front cover until 1923. In its first stage, the committee was composed of Bănescu, Făgețel, Șt. Braborescu, D. N. Ciotori, Gheorghe Ionescu-Sisești, and N. Vulovici. Other editors included Elena Farago, Emil Gârleanu, I. M. Marinescu, C. D. Fortunescu, and later Constantin S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor.^[2] From its early years, the magazine adopted a mix of traditionalism, agrarianism, and nationalism, as promoted by Sămănătorul; the staff of the two publications, together called a Sămănătorist current, were close. "Credințele și gândul nostru" ("Our Beliefs and Thought"), the magazine's manifesto signed by Tomescu, eulogized the literary course charted by Iorga, considered a veritable "emperor of thought", while Sămănătorul represented "the most proper and healthy direction" in Romanian literary life.^[2][4]

Ramuri also cultivated a cordial rapport with other magazines put out by Iorga's disciples—in January 1906, it gave extremely positive coverage to A. C. Cuza's aesthetic guidelines, as published by Făt Frumos of Bârlad.^[5] As noted by Ornea, Sămănătorism required not just a rejection of art for art's sake, but also a near-complete denial of aesthetics. With an article he published in mid-1907, Tomescu elaborated on this, arguing that only didactic art in support of nationalism and the "social aspect" of literature had any reason for being cultivated in Romania.^[6] Overall, Ramuri considered itself "a timid green shoot, sprouted from the vigorous trunk of a literary current that had conquered the entire Romanian soul", as Făgețel wrote.^[2][7] Other articles setting forth a vision include "Rostul și atitudinea noastră" ("Our Purpose and Attitude"; 1908, Tomescu) and "După șase ani de luptă. Literatura în 1911" ("After Six Years of Struggle. Literature in 1911”; 1911, Făgețel).^[2] With these, Ramuri mounted an attack against Alexandru Macedonski and his disciples in the Romanian Symbolist movement, described by Tomescu as cosmopolitans with the "blurry eyes of sickly souls".^[8] This notion was also carried in a poem by "Chesefe and Nevepe", which borrowed the characteristic prosody of Symbolist Ion Minulescu to poke fun at the Macedonskians:

According to philologist Gabriel Coșoveanu, Ramuri also had a regionalist ethos, as an "emblem of the Oltenian spirit".^[1] In practice, it was eclectic, and tolerated dialogue with other branches of regional culture. Poet and schoolteacher Mihail Cruceanu, who identified as both a Marxist and a Symbolist, notes that, by 1915, Farago was the central figure in Craiova's cultural life, with a salon that grouped himself, "nationalists such as those from Ramuri", and the Conservative Vasile Sandulian.^[10] Poetry held an important place in Ramuri; contributors included Octavian Goga ("Revedere", "A fost odată"), George Topîrceanu, Ștefan Octavian Iosif, Nicolae Davidescu, Farago, Eugen Constant, Marcel Romanescu, Vulovici, Al. Iacobescu, Al. C. Calotescu-Neicu, N. Milcu, Ștefan Bălcești, I. C. Popescu-Polyclet, Victor Eftimiu, Ecaterina Pitiș [ro], George Tutoveanu, I. M. Marinescu, Maria Nicolau, and Dem. Bassarabescu.^[2] Prose writers included Ioan Slavici ("Amurg de viață", "Fragmente din jurnalul intim în formă epistolară"), Dimitrie Anghel ("Pelerinul pasionat", "Povestea celor necăjiți", "Tinereță"), Mihail Sadoveanu ("Biserica Jitarului"), and Liviu Rebreanu ("Ordonanța domnului colonel", "Mărturisire"). Ion Agârbiceanu was present almost from the beginning, with a large number of sketches and short stories ("Adormirea lui Moș Ioniță", "Râvna părintelui Man", "Lumea bătrânilor", "Legământul diavolului", "Baba Ilina se pregătește de drum", "Se-mpacă doi dușmani", "Pocăința neamului").^[2] Other prose writers, with Sămănătorist affinities, included Gârleanu ("Călătorie", "O lacrimă pe o geană"), Ioan Alexandru Brătescu-Voinești ("Părtașul"), Caton Theodorian ("De închiriat", "În paraclisul iubirii"), Alexandru Lascarov-Moldovanu [ro] ("O vizită"), Ion Ciocârlan, Eugen Boureanul, Petre Partenie, Tiberiu Crudu, and Ion Dragu.^[2] Through Gârleanu, the magazine obtained contributions from Olga Bălcescu-Gigurtu, a niece of the historian Nicolae Bălcescu, who debuted in Ramuri with distinctly feminine prose.^[11]

Referring to the 1900s and 1910s, Ornea sees Ramuri as promoting "obsolete" local writings, "most often rated below the most basic level of one's exigence". He is critical in particular of the "indescribable" Oltenian contributors, a category that comprises Bănescu, Făgețel and Tomescu, as well as Nicolau, Vulovici, Eugeniu Revent, Lucreția Stergeanu, M. Străjan and Const. S. Stoenescu (but not the more competent Farago).^[12] The more viable works, including those by Goga, Sadoveanu, Topîrceanu, I. A. Bassarabescu, Aron Cotruș, I. Dragoslav and George Ranetti, were only obtained with great effort on Făgețel's part.^[13] Numerous translations also appeared, sampling works by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Schiller, Dante Alighieri, Giovanni Boccaccio, Giacomo Leopardi, Rabindranath Tagore, Alexander Pushkin, Mikhail Lermontov, Ivan Krylov, Henryk Sienkiewicz, Anton Chekhov, Rainer Maria Rilke, Paul Valéry, and the verses of Charles Baudelaire, rendered by Ion Pillat and Al. T. Stamatiad. Meanwhile, Farago translated Émile Verhaeren, while D. Nanu, Leconte de Lisle. Other translators included Iacobescu, I. M. Marinescu, Iorga, and M. D. Ioanid.^[2] Travel literature was contributed by Iorga, Ionescu-Șișești (notes from Germany), Virgil Tempeanu ("Note de drum"), and C. D. Ionescu ("Prin Munții Mehedinților").^[2] The magazine included a literary and an arts column, sections of poetry, prose, translations, commentaries ("Notes"), folklore, articles on aesthetics, art theory, philosophy, psychology, morals, history, geography, ethnography, as well as letters, memories, commemorations and obituaries.^[2] Among the artists who illustrated the pages were Francisc Șirato, Mircea Olarian, Costin Oper, Nadia Bulighin, I. Nițescu, Sever Burada [ro], O. Rădulescu, and G. Billek.^[2]

Iorga's tenure

Ramuri reappeared as a literary weekly in 1915–1916; for most of that interval (24 January 1915 to 15 July 1917), it was merged with Iorga's Drum Drept. It was printed at Bucharest in 1916, at Iași in 1917 (during The Romanian Debacle), and not published at all in 1918.^[2] Iorga himself was directly involved with the magazine's publication in the 1920s, after the establishment of Greater Romania—the reemerging Ramuri was again a bimonthly in 1919–1921.^[2] In January 1921, Iorga informed his Oltenian readers that "Ramuri magazine has again been entrusted to me"; in parallel, Făgețel was busy handling a Ramuri printing press and editorial office.^[14] By December, the magazine was struggling to recover contributors who had since rallied around magazines such as Sburătorul. According to Nanu, Făgețel was the public face of this effort to "revive Sămănătorul", but Iorga directed him discreetly. Nanu was pleasantly surprised that, after having published in Sburătorul an article which openly questioned Iorga's politics, his own poetry was still welcomed at Ramuri.^[15] Reaching out across ideological divides, Făgețel also cultivated the post-Symbolist poet Tudor Arghezi. In September 1921, Arghezi asked his support toward liberating an Oltenian member of the Socialist Party, who had been arrested during a workers' strike.^[16]

Ramuri's first issue for 1922 credited Iorga as director, again mentioning that the magazine had merged with Drum Drept into a weekly publication. In that format, the editorial board included Agârbiceanu, Făgețel, Iacobescu, Tomescu, Gheorghe Bogdan-Duică, Nichifor Crainic, and I. U. Soricu.^[17] In this twinned incarnation, the review hosted Iorga's essay against the emergence of a Romanian decadent movement, including his translation of "healthy" Western European poetry (Iorga encouraged Romanian authors to model themselves on the latter category). His text was welcomed by Tiberiu Crudu in Revista Moldovei, who also commended Iorga's renditions from French, English, Italian and German poetry. Various editorial constraints meant that these samples, though rhyming in the Romanian version, generally appeared in blank verse; exceptions included a fragment from John Masefield, seen by Crudu as outstandingly translated.^[17] The same reviewer noted a major decline in the output of literary prose, with Agârbiceanu as the only genuine writer still featured in that issue.^[17] In later years, this sector was represented by debuting authors, such as Cezar Petrescu ("Învierea căpitanului Lazăr", "Omul din vis"), Gib Mihăescu ("Scuarul"), and Victor Papilian [ro] ("P. N. V.", "Popa ăl bătrân").^[2]

Shortly after, Ramuri had regained its independence; Iorga served as its director continuously from 1923 to 1927, with Drum Drept still used as a subtitle throughout those years (to April 1927).^[2] Folklore played an important part in this edition; its collectors included Constantin Rădulescu-Codin [ro], D. Lungulescu and Traian Păunescu-Ulmu. Scholarly studies on the subject were signed by Alexandru Dima [ro], Scarlat Struțeanu, Ovidiu Papadima, Dumitru Caracostea, and Al. Popescu-Telega. Literary commentary was offered by Iorga, Bogdan-Duică, Caracostea, Tudor Vianu, Tomescu, Făgețel, Dima, and Păunescu-Ulmu. Most articles in this area promoted traditionalist literature; modernist literature was often met with visible reservations (Petre Drăgescu, "Extremismul literar"; Păunescu-Ulmu, "Tradiție și literatură").^[2] In August 1923, Ramuri hosted Iorga's entire conference against Expressionism, which he regarded as a Germanization of Romanian culture (by 1924, the issue was expanded upon in several Ramuri articles, with Iorga detailing his accusations against modernists such as Felix Aderca).^[18] This stance nominally placed Ramuri in conflict with Crainic's own magazine, Gândirea, which had welcomed Expressionism as compatible with the Sămănătorist legacy. As noted by art historian Dan Grigorescu, Iorga steered clear of polemics with Crainic. He "distinguished between Crainic's own poetry (which he treasured) and Expressionist poetry."^[19]

Iorga's effort was backed by Ion Sân-Giorgiu, who in his 1923 articles for Ramuri was describing the Expressionists (whose ranks he would later join) as "obsessed" with metaphors.^[20] The magazine engaged in polemics with Eugen Lovinescu, Mihail Dragomirescu, Ovid Densusianu and certain modernist factions (for instance: "Intelectualizarea", "Impertinență sau aiurea", by Tomescu), on the subject of promoting national characteristics in literature.^[2] Vianu wrote "Universul moral al lui Macedonski" and "Gustul literar", Struțeanu surveyed the work of Mihai Eminescu, Petre Partenie commented on Vasile Alecsandri.^[2] Among the poets who were featured by Ramuri after 1920 were Arghezi ("Oraș medieval"), Lucian Blaga ("Lume"), Ion Pillat ("Elegie", "Recuerdo", "Cules"), Vasile Voiculescu ("Avariție", "Înaintea aurorei", "Apocalips"), and Zaharia Stancu.^[2] The theater was represented by Eftimiu (Rapsozii), Iorga (Tudor Vladimirescu, Sarmală, amicul poporului), and G. M. Vlădescu (Omul care nu mai vine).^[2] Blaga was also featured in this category, with a fragment of Zamolxe,^[2] which is often seen as a sample of Expressionist drama.^[21]

Iorga was particularly active, discussing numerous questions of literary history and aspects of daily life in the past. He signed an article about the towns of Oltenia during the modernization phase of 1760–1830, with similar interests being expressed by Bănescu, Furtună, Lazăr Toma, Fortunescu, Sextil Pușcariu, Ioan Lupaș, M. Strajaru, and Constantin Cehan-Racoviță.^[2] More informally, at a literary meeting staged by Ramuri in 1929, Arghezi proceeded to explore his own roots (described by Tomescu as planted in "Oltenia's vigorous soil"), and gave some of his first impressions regarding the region's natural beauty.^[16] Contributors were also interested in documents and archives, unearthing important new information about writers such as Grigore Alexandrescu, Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu, Iosif Vulcan, Costache Caragiale, Ioan Maiorescu [ro], and Traian Demetrescu.^[2] The magazine also included a review of magazines, as well as notes and commentaries on morals, religion, psychology, education, history, geography and ethnology, bringing an essential contribution to shaping the cultural landscape of its day. Other authors included Emanoil Bucuța, Zaharia Bârsan, Nicolae Constantin Batzaria, Nicolae M. Condiescu, N. I. Herescu, Ion Dongorozi, Anastasie Mândru, Mihai Moșandrei, Gavril Rotică, George Vâlsan, George Voevidca, I. Pavelescu, G. D. Pencioiu, Soricu, and Liviu Marian.^[2]

Late interwar and 1940s

As recounted by Iorga, Făgețel had run the enterprise into debt, and as a result had tried to win favors from the political establishment, joining the National Liberal Party.^[22] His magazine was no longer in print in 1930–1933.^[2] Craiova's Ramuri hall was by then a venue for public debates, airing a large array of grievances and projects. Around 1930, Cruceanu, who had joined the clandestine Romanian Communist Party, appeared there to lecture on monopolies and cartels. This topic allowed him to flaunt conventions by citing Vladimir Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism as a scientific reference.^[23] On 7 August 1933, Grigore Filipescu, who favored economic liberalism as a means of tackling the Great Depression, was scheduled to speak at Ramuri; his intervention was prevented by advocates of debt relief.^[24] The institution had entered a steep decline even after the 1933 revival—as reported in June 1935 by the cultural journalist Mihail Sebastian. Offering his musings on the "decomposition of our provincial cities", Sebastian noted: "The magazine Ramuri, good or bad as it may have been, no longer appears, or, if does still appear, is no longer visible."^[25] In 1937, Dumitru Mercaș reviewed another issue (with articles by Dima, Struțeanu, and Păunescu-Ulmu) for the provincial magazine Însemnări Ieșene, commending those involved for their "great effort" of keeping Ramuri afloat.^[26]

Early on, the eponymous publishing house worked on reissuing various of Iorga's early works as a poet, translator, historian and culture critic. He gave them approval, but later stated his disappointment, noting that Ramuri had taken "disagreeable" editorial decisions, such as putting out Istoria românilor în chipuri și icoane as a single, virtually unreadable, volume.^[27] Iorga was also disappointed by the graphic quality of his Roumanie Pittoresque (1925), and also by Făgețel's incompetence in promoting his monograph on the Balkans.^[28] As a publishing venture, Ramuri was active throughout the 1930s, with Alexandru Busuioceanu launching his Apollo Collection, comprising livres d'art mostly dedicated to the classics of Romanian painting and sculpture. In a 1931 piece, former Ramuri editor Crainic commended Busuioceanu's effort, while noting that the enterprise could not supply "the precision and graphic panache that such a collection would require."^[29] In 1938, the publishing venture also featured the first-ever monograph on the Oltenian modernist sculptor, Constantin Brâncuși, as authored by Vasile Georgescu Paleolog.^[30] The Ramuri imprint also issued notable works of political literature, including Alexandru Sahia's account of his trips in the Soviet Union (which doubled as a defense of Soviet policies)^[31] and the first Romanian textbook of geopolitics, which had three authors (including Anton Golopenția).^[32]

The late interwar saw the radicalization of some nationalists, who converted to fascism, while others embraced political moderation; this also divided the Ramuri staff and its affiliate poets. In the late 1930s, Eugen Constant publicly affiliated with the Iron Guard—even as Iorga himself was emerging as one of the Guard's critics on the right.^[33] The extremes of nationalism were also probed by Crainic, who had moved on to publish the independent newspaper Calendarul, which ended up being taken over by the Guardists.^[34] Nicolăescu-Plopșor was an organizer of the dissident National Liberal Party-Brătianu, and was involved in street battles during the general election of December 1933.^[35] By May 1940, he had joined the catch-all National Renaissance Front, formed around thew authoritarian King Carol II, and was active within its Oltenian sections.^[36]

The magazine itself continued to appear into the early years of World War II, and, in November 1943, as part of the "Oltenia Week", hosted a series of literary meetings. These were attended by Bălcești, Farago, Iacobescu, and Nicolăescu-Plopșor, as well as by Virgil Carianopol, Mircea Damian, George Gregorian, Ion Minulescu, and chanteuse Maria Tănase.^[37] At the height of Ion Antonescu's dictatorship, Făgețel was presiding upon an Oltenian Writers' Association, which also recruited Arghezi. When the latter came into conflict with the regime, and was deported inside the region (at Târgu Jiu internment camp), Făgețel continued to speak out in his favor.^[16] Ramuri's depreciation was nonetheless accentuated upon the end of that interval: before the full closure of 1947, only one issue saw print for all of 1945, and none appeared in 1946.^[2]

Purcaru and Paraschivescu

The magazine was revived as a monthly publication appearing at Craiova from August 1964. That date was selected to coincide with the 20th Liberation from Fascist Occupation Day—marked as a national holiday in the Romanian People's Republic.^[38] The issue opened with an account by Arghezi, describing his feelings about the Oltenian town of Târgu Cărbunești, and included lyrics by Marin Sorescu and Nicolae Dragoș [ro].^[38] Also featured was the summary of a round-table on the life and times of Brâncuși (with participants such as André Frénaud).^[38][39] Beginning with the second issue, Ramuri had contributions from an old collaborator, Vianu, as well as from Vianu's colleague George Călinescu.^[39] The staff chronicler at Luceafărul was more impressed by the third issue, which established Ramuri as "one of the most interesting profiles in our press, both in what it publishes and in its graphic format." Returning with a historical essay on Constantin Brâncoveanu, contributed by Paul Anghel, this issue also had critical takes on new Romanian poetry (one by Alexandru A. Philippide, the other by Carlo Salinari), and an analysis of the standard Romanian literary schoolbook, by George Muntean.^[40] Arghezi returned in 1965 with quasi-sociological musings about Oltenia, describing Oltenian migrations to other areas of Romania as not unlike the seasonal migration of swallows, and expressing his verdict that Romanians and Bukovinans formed the best two specimens of the Romanian people.^[16]

Ilie Purcaru was this edition's first managerial director, seconded by Benedict Gănescu as artistic designer and Dinu Săraru as theater columnist. From the first days of 1965, they were joined by an editorial board, comprising two of the first-edition contributors, Constant and Nicolăescu-Plopșor, alongside Sina Dănciulescu and Petre Dragu.^[39] Their institutional overseer was the Committee for Culture and the Arts in Craiova Region (later Dolj County), accounting for their pledge to uphold "the teachings of Marxism-Leninism";^[39] the editorial offices were in the same building as the local daily, Înainte.^[41] This incarnation considers itself a successor of Făgețel's enterprise, 1980 as its 75th anniversary,^[42] and 2005 as its centennial.^[1] This pedigree was highlighted in 1984 by museologist Tiberiu Alexa, who saw Ramuri, Familia, Viața Românească and Convorbiri Literare as the four Romanian cultural magazines to have preserved not just an interwar tradition, but also their city of residence.^[43]

The new edition's first 25 years of existence coincided with the second half of Romania's communist regime. In 1965–1966, Miron Radu Paraschivescu, a dissident poet engaged with the anti-Stalinist left,^[44][45] was tasked with answering letters to the editor.^[1][39] As one who reviewed aspiring authors, he was eventually allowed in April 1966^[1][39] to publish Ramuri's literary supplement, Povestea Vorbei ("The Story of the Word"), which he turned from a provincial-level publication into a nationally-famous institution for debuting young writers.^[44] A group of Onirist authors, previously indexed by communist censorship, was welcomed by this venue, which became that group's original mouthpiece. As later reported by the Onirist Dumitru Țepeneag, Paraschivescu, having once been engaged with Surrealism, was hoping to construct a "'holy alliance' of the entire avant-garde."^[46] As Ramuri's editor-in-chief, Purcaru also tested censorship—by allowing a former political prisoner, Leon Kalustian, to contribute a set of articles on the interwar diplomacy of Nicolae Titulescu.^[47]

Around the same time, the magazine featured an "article series" by Țepeneag, wherein he sought to revive interest for writers of the first modernist generations—variously including Mateiu Caragiale, Eusebiu Camilar, Ion Caraion, and Constant Tonegaru. The Caraion piece irritated the censors, and only appeared in a heavily modified version, prompting Țepeneag to suspend his participation.^[48] Caraion himself was a regular presence at Ramuri, part of a team of translators that also grew to include Sorescu, Aurora Cornu, Geo Dumitrescu, Ștefan Augustin Doinaș, Mihnea Gheorghiu, Tașcu Gheorghiu, and Teohar Mihadaș. Over the following decades, Ramuri put out numerous authors in translation—variously including Anna Akhmatova, Ivo Andrić, Alain Bosquet, Robert Desnos, T. S. Eliot, Ady Endre, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Allen Ginsberg, Eugenio Montale, Ovid, Octavio Paz, Plato, Ezra Pound, Robert Sabatier, William Saroyan, Georg Trakl, Giuseppe Ungaretti, Walt Whitman, and Sergei Yesenin.^[39]

Paraschivescu only preserved his Povestea Vorbei until December 1966, when censors intervened "for ideological reasons".^[1] The event earned attention within the anticommunist Romanian diaspora, who was probing the limits of anti-Soviet liberalization at home. Radio Free Europe's Monica Lovinescu surmised that Paraschivescu had not been sidelined because of his modernist aesthetics, but simply because he and the Onirists were advocating generic independence from the party line. As she put it: "One cannot possibly overstate just how much M. R. Paraschivescu, with his productive heresies, stokes and supports the youths' own courage."^[49] Before his ouster, Paraschivescu had granted editorial space to many writers who had been fully banned, and were just then allowed to resume work (examples range from Aurel Ciurunga and Nicolae Crevedia to Iordan Chimet and Gellu Naum).^[39] He had personally handled the publication of poems by the Onirists, including Leonid Dimov and Vintilă Ivănceanu [ro], but also the first poems by a post-Onirist generation of poets—Ștefan Agopian [ro] and Virgil Mazilescu.^[1] Other Paraschivescu discoveries were Norman Manea, whose first experimental short-story was taken by Povestea Vorbei in 1966,^[50] and the literary historian Florea Firan [ro], who in 1995 published a Ramuri-themed monograph.^[1]

Purcaru and Piru

Purcaru was largely absent from Romania in 1966–1967, when he covered the Vietnam War from North Vietnam.^[51] At the beginning of the post-Paraschivescu decade, in February 1967, Ramuri was the center of a cultural circle involving Georgescu Paleolog, Nicolăescu-Plopșor and Petre Pandrea; their activities focused on recovering contributions by other old-regime figures, including Brâncuși and novelist Gib Mihăescu.^[52] Ramuri's enduring interest in reconnecting with old-regime literature was another topic of interest for observers in the diaspora, but also a topic of irritation for the regime at home. As early as 1961, Securitate spies heard reports that Paraschivescu was supporting the rehabilitation of Nae Ionescu—officially still reviled as an ideologue of the Iron Guard—, on grounds that Ionescu was primarily a "man of talent".^[53] In February 1968, Mircea Eliade, the self-exiled philosopher and culture critic, reported his astonishment that Ramuri had been allowed to host a retrospective on Ionescu, who had been his own intellectual master. Eliade feared that "such 'excesses' might be used by the Stalinists (or whatever they're called) to turn the screws back on them."^[54] A case file in the Securitate archive, compiled shortly after, spoke of Ramuri as reviving fascism. This source focused its report on Purcaru's editorial praise of Ionescu, and noted that Ramuri had almost succeeded in publishing articles by surviving former members of the Iron Guard and the National Christian Party.^[55]

After Pandrea's own death in July 1968, the magazine put out installments from his posthumous papers, including a fragmentary novel.^[56] It also delved deeper in history with its recovery efforts: also in 1968, it became the first publication to host Eminescu's fragmentary translations from Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.^[57] During Purcaru's tenure, Ramuri also pioneered the reportage genre, with contributions made by Purcaru himself—and also by other writers, including Anghel, Adrian Păunescu, Mihai Pelin, Mihai Caranfil, and Ștefan Tunsoiu.^[39] In June 1967, Purcaru had been interviewed by Scînteia Tineretului newspaper regarding his expectations from this type of writings. He commented that the Romanian reportage had been granted a "solemn funeral" by Geo Bogza in 1945, since every other such work published since had been copying "a foreign model, arrived here from some place, the sort of place where there are no opinions, and no actual press, and no actual reportage". The censors picked this out as a reference to Soviet propaganda, and the corresponding fragment was cut out of the interview.^[58]

In June 1969, Purcaru was replaced by Alexandru Piru, who took Ilarie Hinoveanu as his adjunct. Together, they refashioned Ramuri into a magazine of literary theory.^[39] This trend was noted in July by România Literară magazine, since that month's issue featured a high number of theoretical essays, including Teodor Bugnariu's take on Marxist literary criticism, Adrian Marino's "Critique of literary ideas", and Piru's own musings about literary critics as poets; other portions focused on Oltenian literary history, with Șerban Cioculescu showcasing his discovery of an dramatic poem about Tudor Vladimirescu.^[59] Literary criticism remained a leading focus of the magazine throughout the following decades, when Ramuri hosted articles by seniors such as Cioculescu, Dima, Marino, Ion Biberi, Ovid Crohmălniceanu, Mihai Novicov and Vladimir Streinu, but also new-generation critics of every background and orientation—Mircea Iorgulescu (who made his debut here), Vartan Arachelian, Dan Culcer, Dinu Flămând, Gheorghe Grigurcu, Nicolae Manolescu, Romul Munteanu, Eugen Negrici, Eugen Simion, Mihai Ungheanu, Cornel Ungureanu, and Dan Zamfirescu.^[39] With less regularity, Ramuri hosted contributions to art, film, theatrical and music criticism, with authors such as Săraru, Petru Comarnescu, Lucian Pintilie, Valentin Silvestru, Ion Dezideriu Sîrbu, and Anatol Vieru.^[39]

Piru's tenure coincided with the July Theses, whereby Communist Party leader Nicolae Ceaușescu reissued social commands in the field of culture—and, as such, selectively introduced neo-Stalinism. According to Lovinescu, Piru originally resisted the trend, criticizing Nicolae Breban and Alexandru Ivasiuc for supporting "socialized literature", but by May 1972 reappeared in public with a "firebrand defense of censorship".^[60] Throughout those years, the editorial work at Ramuri was handled by Piru, Marino, Grigore Traian Pop, and Niculae Gheran. The latter published memoirs of the period, noting that much of their time, officially described as participation in literary colloquiums, was spent on erotic pursuits (with aspiring women poets from the provincial towns of Oltenia) and drunken escapades.^[61] According to Gheran, Piru was well liked by his students at the University of Craiova: when Înainte hosted an article sharply critical of his tenure, they rebelled and nearly stormed into the editoral offices, with Piru himself intervening to stop them; however, his own move to Oltenia was a haphazard decision, or a "tribute to an autumnal fling of his."^[62] In April 1976, Piru was replaced with an editorial board, including Romulus Diaconescu and Pelin as the executive directors. Under their watch, Ramuri was generally focused on Oltenia, and compatible with the generic lines of communist propaganda.^[39]

Sorescu's arrival

Sorescu's promotion to manager of Ramuri, made official on 15 July 1978,^[63] brought in a number of changes, and earned him the respect of other cultural figures. According to a September note by poet Nicolae Prelipceanu [ro], his arrival was a qualitative boost for Ramuri—introducing the public to new talents, such as Dorin Tudoran and Ion Cocora.^[64] During Sorescu's period as editor, with Diaconescu kept on as the second editor, Ramuri was primarily a poetry magazine, and had a mild regionalist focus.^[39] The publishing venue had also employed Sîrbu, who was a known dissident and a former political prisoner. Reportedly, the Transylvanian Sîrbu, who deeply resented Craiova as his place of exile in the Balkans, also had an ongoing rivalry with Firan; he only enjoyed the company of G. T. Pop (who was himself of Transylvanian origin).^[65] Sîrbu's exact relationship with Sorescu is the topic of dispute: some witnesses argue that they were friends,^[66] though Sîrbu denied this in his diaries. Also according to Sîrbu: "When I come up to visit Ramuri's offices (which I only do at solstice), they all stop talking and turn pale: they all act as if one of them—who exactly, I couldn't tell you—has just been castrated on the spot, without anesthesia, but they're not to talk about it."^[67] Overall, Sîrbu's presence made the magazine a target of constant surveillance by the Securitate, who relied on a growing network of Craiova informants. Building on documents provided by historian Clara Mareș in 2012, literary critic Dan C. Mihăilescu [ro] opined that the network must have included Sorescu himself, who "managed to both inform on Sîrbu and protect him, being, as it turns out, himself the target of surveillance"; according to Mihăilescu, collaboration with the Securitate had by then become virtually obligatory for people involved in editorial work.^[68]

Sorescu also infused the magazine with his "metaphoric-aggressive" style, including in the publicized polemics.^[39] In the late 1970s, Ramuri hosted criticism of the national-communist venues, engaging itself in polemics with writers Eugen Barbu and Corneliu Vadim Tudor. The latter two had declared Sorescu's novel, La lilieci, to have been attack on "national specificity"; in his reply, carried by Ramuri of December 1978, Sorescu ridiculed Barbu, signaling a push-back against the national-communist supremacy in arts and letters.^[41] Sorescu's friend and collaborator, Tudor Nedelcea, recalls that Ramuri was supposed to feature revelations about Barbu's habitual plagiarism, but that the Communist Party delayed its imprimatur for this piece, giving Barbu forewarning, and ample time to prepare his response.^[69] To Barbu's chagrin, Sorescu also managed to obtain an increase in circulation (which was handled by the local censorship and propaganda apparatus). This was granted after his friend, the poet Gheorghe Izbășescu, engaged in astroturfing on Ramuri's behalf, telling officials that Ramuri was in high demand among the readers of Onești.^[70] In addition to supporting liberalization in the arts, Ramuri had also created itself a sports page. It was largely dedicated to the coverage of Romanian football, with contributions by Ilie Balaci and by Sorescu himself; both covered the exceptionally productive seasons of CS Universitatea Craiova.^[71]

Sorescu himself was seen as sufficiently compatible with the other strands of nationalism, including Edgar Papu's Protochronism. In 1977, Papu and fellow philosopher Constantin Noica established a "board of initiative" for a Ramuri supplement on the theory of culture, also obtaining support from Anghel and Mihai Șora. Though Protochronism was already supported within some of the Communist Party's higher echelons, the project was disavowed in 1978, after being vetoed by Leonte Răutu, and the Securitate proceeded to enhance its surveillance of Papu.^[72] In the early 1980s, Securitate informants centered their accusations on Sorescu's protegé, Gabriel Chifu, who had been brought in as a member of the editorial staff. Such allegations had it that Chifu, who had been awarded a national prize by the Union of Communist Youth, was in fact a favorite of the anticommunists—since his literary work had also been given a positive review by Lovinescu at Radio Free Europe.^[73] The controversy also divided the former writing and editorial staff, with Purcaru emerging as a supporter of Barbu, and interviewing him in October 1982. During their exchange, Purcaru alleged that Ion Caraion, who had since defected to the West and was emerging as a critic of the regime, had always been a spy for outside forces—including at Ramuri.^[74]

By May 1982, Sorescu was being followed around for having briefly engaged with the Transcendental Meditation movement, which the communist regime had since banned.^[75] The affair almost resulted in his being banned from literature altogether, until Nedelcea began circulating a photocopied bibliography, providing communist officials with direct proof of Sorescu's international fame.^[76] Writing in 2006, literary historian Valentin Tașcu, himself a contributor to Ramuri, argued that during the 1980s the magazine had been required to promote "politicized texts"—but also that it largely toed the party line, and was never "overzealous" in this respect.^[39] In June 1984, the Securitate heard additional reports that, at a Ramuri conference, Chifu had told the audience that "inadequate people have been planted in all of society's key spots" and that the magazine now stood for a "supreme nostalgia", that of art for art's sake.^[77] This speech resulted in Chifu and all of his associates being closely monitored by the regime.^[78] Sorescu was still allowed to travel abroad, and was part of the Romanian delegation in Rome during December 1984. He was joined there by his former Ramuri colleague, Marino; the two were attending a function where it was announced that Marino had been shortlisted for the Herder Prize. According to Marino, the news sent Sorescu into a fit of jealous rage—contextualizing the reason why, upon his return to Craiova, Sorescu issued at least one article specifically downplaying Marino's scholarly contribution.^[79]

During the final stages of Soviet-style communism, Securitate officers were reviewing allegations that Sorescu had presented the staff of Radio Free Europe with his copy of Nicolae Steinhardt's samizdat (detailing Steinhardt's experience as a political prisoner of the communists).^[80] Steinhardt, by then a monk and librarian at Rohia, was also a contributor to Ramuri—in June 1985, it published his review of Doina Graur's book of religious cosmology.^[81] In January 1987, the magazine also hosted his essay on the life and times of Sofronie Miclescu, which touched on Miclescu's role in promoting the union of Moldavia and Wallachia during the 1850s. The text as sent by Steinhardt also included a disparaging reference to the anti-unionist leader, Nicolae Vogoride, as pramatie primejdioasă ("dangerous scoundrel"); this was eliminated from the published version, prompting Steinhardt to declare his bemusement, in a letter he addressed to Sorescu: "Someone apparently jumped in to defend that inveterate intriguer".^[82] In late 1987, Ramuri's almanac edition also doubled as a Festschrift marking Eliade's recovery. Put out by Mircea Handoca, it featured a contribution by Steinhardt, who had been Eliade's personal friend.^[83]

1989 Revolution and aftermath

The July 1989 issue of Ramuri appeared with significant and unexplained delay. Rumors collected at the time by diarist Liviu Ioan Stoiciu had it that the magazine had not been sufficiently enthusiastic in covering preparations for the 14th Communist Party Congress, and that censorship forced it to reprint that issue.^[84] According to Sorescu's own testimony, he was still being attacked for his involvement in the Transcendental Meditation affair, and effectively sidelined in October, when "I had been replaced in all by name with Romulus Diaconescu";^[85] Ramuri never printed issues for November and December 1989.^[39] That period also witnessed Sîrbu's death in Craiova. The funeral, which had two writers and two Jiu Valley miners as pallbearers, was attended by at least some of Ramuri's editors.^[86] According to Nedelcea, Sorescu, though mainly active from Bucharest, was still manager of Ramuri during the Romanian Revolution of December 1989, which ended communism. As reported by the same source, Sorescu was invited to participate in the revolutionary events, but refrained from such engagements; Nedelcea also argues that foreign powers extended his friend an offer to take over as President of Romania, but that Sorescu again declined, after realizing that he was expected to endorse Transylvanian devolution in exchange for such honors.^[87]

Ramuri reappeared with a special issue on 25 December 1989, under the provisional title of Ramuri în Libertate.^[74] Another, regular, issue appeared in January 1990 with an editorial note by Sorescu, announcing to Romanians that: "The nightmare is over".^[39] Also that month, Sorescu resumed his traveling abroad. He established a collaboration with Radio Free Europe, through both Lovinescu and Virgil Ierunca, praising them at Ramuri, and reportedly informing them that he was "no longer afraid".^[88] While visiting the RFE's studio in Paris, he also met the exile Paul Goma, who remained his staunch critic; as a sign of reconciliation, Sorescu invited Goma to write for his magazine.^[89] He himself remained at Ramuri only until February 1991, when he came into conflict with his colleagues, who voted to have him sacked. In their justification, which earned support from the overseeing Writers' Union of Romania, they alleged that Sorescu had been dictatorial in his behavior, and disrespectful of other writers (among them Manolescu, Ana Blandiana, and Eugène Ionesco).^[90][91] Sorescu responded in Adevărul daily, suggesting that the Ramuri staff resented his a-political line (including his refusal to publish current-affairs commentary), but also agreeing to hand in his resignation.^[90][92] He ridiculed the new editorial team, headed by Chifu, as "tiny venomous monsters", reproaching his own past leniency toward them; a note in Adevărul and a piece by Gheorghe Tomozei endorsed such claims, arguing that Chifu and the others were virtual unknowns in the literary world.^[93]

Sorescu was instead criticized by Libertatea daily and by writer Mircea Dinescu, who noted that, under his watch, Ramuri was losing 1 million lei each year. Among Sorescu's defenders, novelist Fănuș Neagu acknowledged that the latter claim was true, but also asked the Writers' Union to disclose the budgetary expenditures of other magazines which it sponsored.^[94] The April 1991 issue, which was the first one to feature Chifu as editor, also witnessed severe budget cuts; for a while after, Ramuri appeared in smaller format, and with a noticeable decline in the quality of its print.^[39] Despite his resignation, in September 1992 Sorescu was identified as Ramuri editor by Fernand Jué company of Villers-sous-Saint-Leu, France, which sent the magazine a rotary printing press.^[95] According to Chifu's critics, this potential was entirely wasted, as the press ended up being used for labeling locally produced spirits.^[96] In December, Ramuri appeared with a note condemning the Stolojan Cabinet for having massively reduced public expenditure, including for state-dependent cultural venues.^[39] The magazine reappeared in 1993, when economic policy was being steered by the Văcăroiu Cabinet. Chifu stayed on as editor-in-chief, but some of his attributions were supplanted by an "honorary editorial board", whose members were authors Dinescu, Ștefan Augustin Doinaș, Mircea Iorgulescu, Eugen Negrici, and Virgil Nemoianu.^[39] Largely a conventional literary publication, which covered cultural events throughout Romania, it also maintained an Oltenian focus, particularly in poetry.^[39] Sorescu was at the time the Minister of Culture, serving until his death in December 1996. According to Nedelcea, his demise was hastened by the injustices he had suffered (including the Ramuri affair), and also by a "dubious vaccine" he had received "at some airport."^[97]

Over the following years, the magazine, whose triumvirate staff included Chifu, Diaconescu and Marius Ghica,^[98] went into another period of relative decline. This was attested in October 1998 by Marino, the former Ramuri house critic, who saluted the appearance in Craiova of a rival literary sheet, Mozaicul. According to Marino, Ramuri was by then a "semi-official magazine", and as such affected by the pitfalls of "official culture"—including, "above all, a lack of money."^[99] In his personal notes, Marino describes himself as flattered by Chifu's attempts to reconnect with him, though he also notes that he was never interested in being reactivated as a literary critic, since he did not consider himself one.^[100] In later years, the magazine continued to be regarded as not entirely up to its previous standards. In his 2006 dictionary entry, Tașcu noted that Ramuri had always had a "likable aesthetic format", adding: "except for these past years".^[39] It still obtained contributions from writers such as the Bucharest-based Horia Gârbea, who had been assigned a permanent column in 2008.^[101]