2796124063

638 TJN DfiBAT : LES MENTALITES COLLECTIYES 8

are based on a narrative complex with orał circulation among the Roma nians.¹²

Those who were elaborating the written texts (inseriptions, chan-celiery deeds, chronieles) as well as those who copied them, belonged to a world which was giving priority to the orał and figurative speech. Each of the three possibilities of expression, covered besides a common zonę, a specific materiał. Thus the łąck o£ certain news in chronieles or cycles of narratiyes does not demonstrate that they are missing in the orał culture of those who recorded the events. Ałthough Neculce wrote, at the time when the narrative was part of historiography, he was clearly aware of the set of orał “narratiyes” incompatible with the literary genre of the “chronicie” ; and that is why he collected them separately (not because he was unfamiłiar with them when working on the “letopise(” — the chronicie —).

At the same time the absence from different folkłoric species of certain direct reflections from the written culture (characters, events etc.) does not show that they were unknown to the people who were creating and transmitting the orał culture. The thorough records of “old” books (manuscripts or printed books) show that they were spread through vil-lages where the inhabitants were often striying to gather and keep their precious substance.¹³

The popular books and the folklore, even if they use a common topie, aie not organized according to identical rules. When Alexander, Philip, Por and particularly Bucephalus (to speak only of Alexandria — Ale-xander’s romace— the generał reference term) were incorporated intocertain legends, tales, narratiyes, wedding orations,¹⁴ they yielded to their struc-tures, becoming clearly remote from their own initial shape.

Many copies of Cantemir’s Divan (some originating from Transyl-vanian yillages) reveal the special circulation of a writing not quite easy to read.¹⁶ Its traces cannot be detected in the folk literaturę, but in other fields of orał culture.

^ł* DecisWe arguments which support this earlier affirmatlon have becn lately preseated by: ętefan Andreescu, Vlad T^ePW (Dracula), Bucureęti, 1976; NIcolae Stolcescu, Vlad Tepeę, Bucureęti, 1976 (English versIon in 1978); łon StSv3ru$, Pooestiri medieuale despre Vtad Jepef-Draculea, Bucureęti, 1978. See also Algerla Simota, Pove$tire despre Dracula Voevod in Dlcfionarul literatura romdne de la origlnl plnd la 1900, Bncure?tl_v 1979. Discussion of the problem from the standpoint of the history of mentalities, by Al. Dutu_f in Modele, imagini, priuelijti, p. 106-111.

¹¹ Mircea Avram, Cartea romdneascd manuscrisd, Sibiu, 1970; Cartea oeche romAneascd, In colecfiile BCU, Bucureęti, 1972; Ilie Corfus, Insemndri de demult, Ia$I, 1975; M. Moraru, C. Velculescu_# Bibliografia cdrfilor populare laice (continued; Bibl. c.p.), selentiflc coordina-tion Introductory study by I. C. Chifimia, Bucure^ti, 1976, —1978; Florian Duda$, Carte oeche romdneascd tn Bihor, Oradea. 1977; Octavian §chiau, Cdriurari fi cdrfi In spafiul romd-nesc medieoal. Ciuj, 1978. The list is far from complete. The particular importance of these remarks for the correct reconstruction of rural mentality has been underlined by AL Dutn, op. cit, p. 199-203.

¹⁴ O. Birlea. op. cit., p. 63, 423; idem, L’influence des liores populaires sur les contes fantastięues, in Berichte im Auftrag der Internationalen Arbeitsgemeinschaft filr Forschung zum romanischen Yolksbuch, hgg. Felix Karlinger, Seekirchen, 1975, p. 36—38.

¹⁶ Dimitrie Cantemir, Dtoanul, edition and introductory study by VIrgil C&ndea, Bucureęti, 1969, p. LXXXV—XCl; VIrgil Cflndea, La diffusion de Voeuvre de Dimitrie Cantemir en Europę du Sud-Est et au Prochc Orient, RESEE, 1972, No. 3.