2796124066

11 UN DEBAT : LES MENTAUTfiS COLŁECTfYES 641

scholar, but also a skilled artisan acquainted with the entire orał culture; he smnmed up in five seenes the miracnlous story of Maria, the daughter -of the king of France, married to a “dux”. The introduction of this •event within a welł-ostablished cycłe — beside the earłier representation of the “izyorul cu apa vie” (the life-giving source) — seems to be one of the innovations of the Oltenian painter. ²⁸

One ean see that the Eomanian translators preferred to express themselres in prose even when the original writings were in rerse form.²⁹ The early Eomanian yersions of Frotocritos by Yincentzo Cornaros (un-Jike the Greek processings and the late translation of Anton Pann after Dionisie Fotino) are in prose form (indicating the speakers, including the nairator) with the exception of certain versified fragments.³⁰ One ean remark some rhymed and rhythmic passages in many 17th and 18th centuries writings. Thus, teyeral extracts found in Dimitrie ('antemir’s IIieroglyphic IHstcry, suggest a direct eastern source.³¹ Dosoftei inserts in his Frologues the veises which eontinue (if not in point of the le\ic, at least of the methcd) an early Greek tradition,³² also manifest in some Eomanian yersions of the Triady on and the Penticostar,³³

A glanee at those collections of the Eomanian epic in which the ar-chaic forms of the narratiye are still miiTored, will conrince us that the insert i on of verse (characterized by rhythm or by rhyme only) and of the dialogue — staging in a flucnt prose exposition, was one of the most fiequent deyices.³⁴ This device probably used in a wide geographical area, had penetrated into the writtcn eultures, that weie not strietly delimited from the orał speech. The Eomanian translators had accepted it as their own method of exposition, on the strength of one of the&e customs rooted in folk culture.

The editing of the Eomanian ehronicles (writings which require a rigorous scientifie knowledge) by the classical working procedurę raises difficulties well lcnown by speciałists.³⁶

If, confronted with these texts, one confines oneself only to classify-ing the rariauts, the impression is of chaos, which, eyentually, one is inclined to ascribe to the loss of some manuscripts c.onsidered essential links in the chain of copies. Tf, however, we refcr to the mentality of copy-ists we understand that their actiyity was not gorerned by the principle

²⁸ Lacking an iconographic rcpertory of the monuments of this country, of those sonth of the Danube or of Athos (not to mention other possible sources of inspiration situat--ed farther). any statemcnt conccrning the innovations of a loeal painter can be butrelattoe.

²³ I. C. Chitimia. Problcme de bazd. p. 427.

³⁰    BlbL c.p.. p. 197-210.

³¹    Mircea Anghelescu. Literatura romdnd ęi Orientul, Bucure$ti. 1975. p. 24—26.

³²    Dosoftei. Opere, vol. I. Yersuri. critical edition by N.A. tyrsu: Jntroductory study by Al. Andricscu. Bucureęti. 1978.

³³    Istorla literaturti romdne (A Treatise). vol. I. Bucure$ti. 1964. p. 257. 306. 548.

⁸⁴    O. Birlea. op. cff.. p. 78—82.

⁸⁵ The examination of the scientifie editions published in this country arouses the res-pect and admiration for the thoroughgoing Work they comprise, witliout which it is not ^possible to reconstitute the mentality of the copyists. Liviu Onu in his book Crliica tex-tualft ęi editarea liieraturii romdne oeche. Bucure$ti, 1973. discusses. in the 400 pages, with the confidence of the specialist. the problems nroused by the editing of Grigore Ureche’s <hron!cle and of one of Miron Costin*s works. De neamul moldouenilor.