2796124071

15 TO* DEBAT : LES MENTALITES COI^LECTIYES 645

copyists who could look at it whenever they chose to, was a direct relation and not a reproduction of the written tradition.

In selecting the edifying tales from the epic materiał so diversely included in the Moscovite editions of the Frologues, a Transylvanian co-pyist assured that “nu din cuvinte in cuvinte sint intoarse pre limba rumńneasca, ci mult scurtate, iara nimic addugate” (they are not word for word translated into Romanian; they are much abridged and noihing is added) (B.A.R. Romanian Ms., 2507, f. 94). Tbis “nothing added”, which is still often met in the prefaces of Coresi, reveals a certain fear of making changes through interrcntions uncontrolled by an authority. Nevertheless, many additions were madę and their significance was difficult to under-stand ⁴⁵.

Referring to that time, when the literaturę in Romanian asserted itself, one cannot speak only of “the influence of the folklore” on written culture, but also of the structure of the latter as based on the laws of orał culture. If in the writings of the “internal circle”, which set the prin-ciples, interventions were seldom and with circumspection madę, in those of the external circle, meant to present concrete illustrations ⁴⁶, the copyists madę their prcsence felt in diffcrent ways.

Unfortunatcly, the study of manuscripts, as well as the identifica-tion of copyists stopped by the beginning of the third decade of the 19th century. Of the years which followed, literary history works have created an image which reflects only partially the truth, pinpointing — rather awkwardly — only what was considered to bring about a “new” tendency with Conachi, Mumuleanr. Grigore Alexandrescu and others. But those writers, besides elements of Western culture — whose traces have been carefully detected —, also assimilated other elements from the books they were reading in the milieus in which they lived and were deeply impli-cated. Their contemporaries usually read and copied (dupheating even prinred copies) : Alexandria, Erotocriios, “the tale of the girl with severed band⁴',” Fiore di Virtu, Varlaam and Ioasaf, chronicles and chronographs, Sindipa, Archirie and Anadan, not to mention Berłoldo (with his descen-dants), Till E^densp^egel and astrological literaturę ⁴⁷. Ali these writings

⁴⁵    At the lcvcl of scholars. one bas to add an lnterestlng casc: the trcatlse Despre raliunea dominanta. was Included In the 1688 edltlon of the Bibie, translated lnto Romanian. althongh another apocryphal book from the source of tliat translatlon (Frankfort edition. 1597) had been eliiulnated (Virgll Cflndca. Raliunea dominanta, p. 182). The boldness of the autliors of the Bucharcst edition was not uncxpected. sińce the ^<<trcatlse^,ł of Pscudo-Jose-phus corrcspondcd to an outlook ln which the elear mlnd has prlority ovcr emotion and lma-glnatlon, an outlook on wlilch tlie lnvatóturilc by Neagoe Basarab were based.

⁴⁶    Al. Dulu. Modele, imagini. prioelięti. p. 44.

⁴⁷    We flnd such historles of literaturę (understanding by literaturę all that was meant to be read) recording Western Europę (wherc the relation between the popular level and the other levcls evolved diffcrently from ours) by, for lnstance. Robert Mandrou. De la cul-Jurę popnlaire auz XVII* et XVIII* sUcles. La Bibliothćgue bleue de Trof/es. Pnris. 1964: Rudolf Sclienda. Volk ohne Buch. Stndien zur Sozialgeschichle der populdren Lesestoffe. 1770— 1910. Frankfurt/M. 1970 etc. For tiie Romanian culture: Paul Comea Originile romantismului romdnesc. Spirltul public. mięcarea ideilor fi literatura Intre 1780—1840. Bucureęti, 1972: Al. Dutu. Sintezd ęi originalitate in cultura romónó (1654—1818), Bucureętj. 1972: Ovldlu Papadima. lpostaze ale iluminismului romdnesc. Bucureętl. 1975.