Zincography of Popnedea in 1905

Nicolae D. Popescu, also known under his pen names Popnedea and Nedea Popescu (August 9, 1843 – June 8, 1921), was a Romanian prose writer and almanac compiler.

Biography

Origins and early successes

"Popnedea" was born in Bucharest, capital of Wallachia, to Romanian Orthodox priest Dimitrie Popescu and his wife Niculina.[1] As he proudly noted in a 1905 autobiography, his ancestors on both sides were "plebeian" sharecroppers, situated below the yeomanry (moșneni).[2] Popescu began high school in his native city (which was advanced to capital of the United Principalities during his youth), but left early in 1861 in order to become a civil servant at the Foreign Ministry.[1] He wrote numerous calendars starting in 1866—when he became a contributor to Calendar pentru Toți, and then to I. C. Fundescu's Calendarul Dracului.[3] He later edited his own almanacs, with various titles; his first contract was with printer Honoriu C. Wartha.[4] As noted by journalist Barbu Brănișteanu, he may have been prompted to begin such work by the enthronement of Carol I as Domnitor; the almanacs double as minute records of Carol's reign, "which is so very rich in great deeds benefiting the Romanian land and its people."[5]

Popescu once reported that his motivation for writing was in his commitment to Romanian nationalism, searching for readers who would love "Romanian books on Romanian topics, as written down by a Romanian."[6] His debut appears to have occurred as early as 1866, when, using the signature Nicop, he penned for Calendar pentru Toți a historical sketch story on the Battle of Rovine;[3] other bibliographies suggest that in 1864[1] or 1865[7] he had already published a historical novel on Radu the Handsome (Radu al III-lea cel Frumos). He was also exploiting the standard ballads of Romanian folklore, with a novella inspired by Meșterul Manole legends. Appearing in 1869 as Meșterulŭ Manole séŭ zidirea monastireĭ Curtea de Argesiŭ ("Manole the Craftsman of the Erection of Argeș Monastery"),[8] it invented a backstory identifying the character with a Andalusian Master Manoel, arriving in Wallachia as a means to escape the Spanish Inquisition.[9]

Looking back on the period in 1976, literary historian Mihai Gafița proposed that, by his very selection of historical fiction as a favorite means of expression, Popnedea was a romantic or neo-romantic, prolonging the movement's echoes down to World War I.[10] Popescu soon became noted for his sensationalist adventure novels—either historically themed or codifying traditions surrounding famous hajduks and bandits. A few of his many such works include Amazoana de la Rahova, 1879; Iancu Jianu, 1880; Miul haiducul, 1881; Tunsul haiducul, 1881; Codreanu haiducu, 1882 and Boierii haiduci, 1892.[1] As cultural historian Lucian Boia noted a hundred years later, these works had invented a hajduk genre in Romanian literature, with over 100 individual titles being produced by Popnedea and his competitors before 1920. As seen by Boia, this formula had managed to satisfy both traditionalists, who were attached to the Alexander Romance, and Westernized readers, growing up on The Mysteries of Paris.[11] Popescu himself delved in sentimental and didactic fiction, which, scholar Alexandru Farcaș notes, was heavily indebted to Pierre Alexis Ponson du Terrail. According to Farcaș, he was exceptionally bad in the genre, and inferior to the likes of George Baronzi; his 1873 novel, Elisa, was centered on a negative portrayal of upper-class men as serial seducer of mahala girls, explicitly warning "daughters of my people" not to engage with "these dangerous Don Juan-types."[12]

Popnedea's literary output was informed by the Romanian War of Independence, to which he dedicated as many as eight of his novels, all seen as mediocre by scholars such as Serafim Duicu.[13] A core theme in such works was the establishment of a link between the United Principalities removing ties of vassalage to the Ottoman Empire and the long line of Ottoman wars in Europe—specifically, he described modern Romanians as inspired by a medieval hero, Mircea the Elder.[14] Additionally, in one of his stories, he retold in prose a narrative poem by Vasile Alecsandri—both works were dedicated to a heroic soldier, Peneș Curcanul.[15] Also a primary source (due to his work in the civil service), he left ample documentation. His war-themed monograph, which ran to three separate prints by 1889, offered relevant detail on the Romanian Land Forces' preparatory activities in Oltenia. As summarized by historian Ion Pătrașcu, the volume's tone is "dignified and patriotic", partly compensating for its failures as a work of science.[16] His subsequent almanacs also cover the establishment of a Romanian Kingdom (with Carol as King), then the Carlist monarchy's silver and golden jubilees.[17]

Popescu's other work was carried by various dailies, weeklies and monthlies appearing during this decades-long interval—Amiculu Familiei, Columna lui Traianŭ, Revista Contimporană, Revista Literară și Științifică, România Ilustrată, Telegraful, Ghimpele, and Vatra.[1] His other contributions include a series of song and couplet collections, in the style of Anton Pann's old anthologies.[1] As shown by their repeated republication, his novels were much loved by the late-19th-century reading public,[1] and, as early as 1870, fragments of Tunsul haiducul had been made into a play, performed by Iorgu Caragiale's troupe.[18] Three years later, George Bengescu-Dabija had completed a stage version of Radu al III-lea cel Frumos, mixing elements from Popnedea's narrative and consecrated romantic tropes, borrowed from Victor Hugo.[19] According to the literary critic Vladimir Streinu, his appeal, like that of contemporary writers such as Petre Ispirescu, was owed to his folkloric roots, at a time when the urban public was encouraged to revisit its rural ancestry.[20] Philologist Ion C. Chițimia sees Popnedea as less accomplished than Ispirescu and Dumitru Stăncescu, since the latter two were interested in authenticity, to the point of preserving in writing the peasants' speech patterns (something which Popnedea generally shunned).[21] Popescu himself contrarily believed that his writing style was shaped by the people's "plain and simple" language. He rejoiced in having liberated historical writing from the "archaic" literary language of ancient chronicles.[22] The mid-1870s marked his beginnings as a dramatist, with the medieval-themed fantasy play, Păstorița Carpaților ("Shepherdess of the Carpathians"). It was used in 1877 by the National Theater Bucharest, with Mihail Pascaly and Constantin Dimitriade appearing in the lead roles.[23]

Rejection

Though his "quite delirious sensationalism" had serious imitators, such as the younger novelists Panait Macri and Ilie Ighel-Deleanu,[12] Popescu was aware that the "Romanian literati" would not have him join their circles. Writing about himself in the third-person, he complained that professional societies did not seek him out, "not even so as to line him up with the smallest of the small-game authors."[24] The Popnedea corpus was indeed strongly disliked and mocked by some of the more elitist authors—one example was Dumitru Laurian of Viitorul newspaper; his 1873 Califatul, mixing political satire and science-fiction tropes, mockingly referred to Popnedea as a Romanian classic, whose work is trampled upon by an Islamic state of the future.[25] Iorgu's nephew, Ion Luca Caragiale, had by then debuted in the theatrical world was as a scribe, whose first preserved manuscript is a copy of his uncle's Tunsul play.[26] Later, he was a prompt for the stage production of Păstorița.[23] His familiarity with Popescu's works quickly turned into hostility: as early as 1874, he dedicated Popnedea one of his satirical pieces, proposing that his rival's bust, "in its natural lard", be set on a pedestal decorated with gilded astrological signs and with a cardboard calendar in front of it.[27]

In March 1878, the neo-romantic poet Alexandru Macedonski gave a lecture on the state of Romanian letters. His overview still included Popnedea on a list of commendable authors, though, as scholar George Munteanu, Macedonski's enumeration had "a sort of hastiness". At a time when the more classical-oriented Junimea movement was beginning its rise, Macedonski seemed aware that most of those on his list were "illustrious nobodies".[28] Appearing late that same year at Junimea, Caragiale's celebrated comedy, A Stormy Night, featured uncredited samples of a romance made popular by Popescu's almanacs; in using such fragments, Caragiale makes a point about his characters' intellectual and sentimental expectations.[29] Caragiale's associate George Ranetti was more lenient toward the novelist, and in 1902 looked back on his activity as "perhaps the most popular author of the Romanian realm." He qualified this statement by suggesting that Popnedea was mainly an author of "delicious" literature for children, adding: "Nowadays we smile as we remember [his] books, and we don't even want to bring up their literary value, and yet we have fond memories of the intense emotions they would once provide us with."[30] According to the literary chronicler of Mișcarea newspaper, he was an "enormous" but unacknowledged influence on the Sămănătorul movement, with Nicolae N. Beldiceanu and Constantin Sandu-Aldea both being in his debt.[31]

In an 1898 study, Junimist scholar Constantin Litzica panned Popnedea's attempts in the field of folkloristics, after observing that a fairy tale he had collected, Pipelcuța, was the only source on "Saint Tuesday"—roughly analogous to "Saint Friday". According to Litzica, he had no scientific method, and had recorded variants from unreliable informants.[32] As once noted by literary historian Silvian Iosifescu, his historical narratives were primarily untrustworthy, "rich in anachronisms".[33] Popescu's ambitions as a historian were taken seriously by Octav-George Lecca, who relied on his research for his own genealogies of local boyardom, published in 1899; this choice was criticized by scholar Ștefan Orășanu of Junimea, according to whom Lecca had forfeited his own credibility.[34] Sămănătorul's doyen, Nicolae Iorga, recalled being impressed as a child by Popescu's almanacs, and proposed that a section of the public could still gather its basic education from them. Overall, he rated them as inferior writings, scrise pe șleau, după putința bietului "romancier popular" ("written without much thought, which is how this 'popular novelist' could manage").[35]

By then, the novelist had also generated admiration among the younger writers, including Brănișteanu (who, by how own admission, would spend his entire monthly allowance on the almanacs)[36] and the Poporanist historical novelist, Mihail Sadoveanu. As literary scholar Ion Rotaru notes, the latter had grown up as a "devourer of books about terrifying hajduks", primarily Popnedea's. Though these were "without much artistic value", they helped cement Sadoveanu's belief in social justice and the right of revolution.[37] A similar following existed among young Romanian nationalists in Austria-Hungary. Alongside other "books of folk literature", his adventure novels, alongside fairy-tales retold by Caragiale, captivated a young Transylvanian raconteur, Ion Agârbiceanu. Both authors helped shape his own approach to literature.[38] A generation later, in the Banat, historian Constantin Daicoviciu grew up reading not just Agârbiceanu's novels, but also Popnedea's smuggled-in "stories of hajduks". He remembered the latter for being "the first literary works that made us simmer with hatred against social injustices".[39]

Return and final decades

From 1897, Popescu's almanac took the name of Calendar pentru Toți Românii ("A Calendar for All Romanians"), slightly modified in 1898, when he changed publishers, to Calendar pentru Toți Fiii României ("A Calendar for All of Romania's Sons").[7] Popnedea (also known as "Nedea Popescu") continued to try his hand as a dramatist, completing and proposing several works in the genre.[40] His work in the field was only revisited in February 1902, when Păstorița Carpaților was taken up by the National Theater for its charity shows. As noted at the time by critic Emil Fagure, it contained "lots of spiritual contradictions", but remained "vastly superior to many products by authors who presently demand to be in the spotlight."[23] This new version starred Nicolae Soreanu in a comedic role, as Doctor Frangipani.[30]

Brănișteanu sees all of Popnedea's almanacs as forming a publishing continuum and thus reports that, by 1905, they and the government gazette, Monitorul Oficial, were the only two periodicals that could celebrate a four-decade existence; however, Popescu reported that the publication made him little money (especially since he was forced to pay his printers), and noted having had to mortgage his family homes in Bucharest and Sinaia.[41] The same year, Iorga observed that his popularity had been steadily dropping;[35] a contrasting account was provided in 1969 by the poet and oral historian Sașa Pană, according to whom Popescu's books were wildly popular with young folks (including himself and others of his generation) and peasants, making the author a very prosperous man. Pană suggests that such success "allowed [Popnedea] to put out books on which he lost money."[42] Writing in 1906, the aging author himself expressed gratitude to his core audience, comprising high-school students and University of Bucharest youth, noting that they still held up the "torch of patriotism".[7]

Popescu had climbed in the civil-service hierarchy, and from 1876 had served as head of the Foreign Ministry Archive.[16] He worked directly under his brother-in-law, Ștefan Dumitrescu, noted for his controversial decision of destroying most bull's head stamps in the ministerial collections; realizing their value as collector items, Popnedea retrieved two such items before they could be set on fire.[43] He was still employed at that archive in 1890, when he had also been hired by the Ministry of Internal Affairs to organize its documentary fund. As reported by Lupta daily in October of that year, he was falling behind in this activity, despite collecting a "pretty hefty" monthly salary.[44] In December 1909, he was known as a former clerk of the Foreign Ministry. On December 8, after an assassination attempt on the Prime Minister, Ion I. C. Brătianu, he joined the crowd keeping vigil outside the Brătianu home. Several of those present heard him boast that he had been forewarned about a "great event". This resulted in his being questioned by Romanian Police.[45] In July 1911, while still with the Foreign Ministry, he had been temporarily hired as an expert by the State Archives. This created additional controversy after the Archives' director, Dimitrie Onciul, alleged that Popescu had absconded with "a number of precious documents". An examining magistrate carried out a raid on Popnedea's Bucharest home as he was in Sinaia; only two documents were found, and the authorities were persuaded that he was only using them for studying.[46]

Popnedea finally took his pension in 1913.[1] During the following three years, which coincided with World War I and an increase in nationalism, supporting territorial demands on Austria-Hungary, the cosmopolitan left-winger Ion Vinea blamed him and his hajduk stories for the emergence of "populist imbecility".[47] At that late stage of his career, Popescu was seeking to obtain royalties from Bucura Dumbravă, the author of best-selling hajduk novels, whom he accused of stealing from his work.[48] The old man still contributed to literature in interwar Greater Romania—though his main focus was in the institutional history genre, with monographs on the state railway carrier and the Romanian postal services.[40]

Popescu studied intensely at the Romanian Academy Library, where he rubbed elbows with scholar Barbu Lăzăreanu. As the latter recalled in 1924, the novelist struck an unpleasant figure, being vociferous and taking up much space with his excess weight, but also falling asleep and snoring as the others tried to get their work done.[31] Another witness was the then-young literary critic, Perpessicius, who noted that "the obese N. D. Popescu, a benign author of the hajduks, [...] spilled over two chairs".[49] Both monographs were nearly finished by the time of Popescu's death, which occurred in mid-1921 at his home at General Lahovari Street 26, Bucharest.[40] According to conflicting sources, the date is either June 8[1] or June 11,[40] both being some two months short of his 78th birthday. His austere funeral was briefly covered by Viitorul of June 13, which wrongly suggested that he had already turned 78; the same source also reported that he had been a "devoted member" of Brătianu's National Liberal Party.[50]

Legacy

In the immediate posterity, Lăzăreanu dedicated Popnedea a short biographical sketch, informing his readers that the hajduk novels had their literary and documentary significance.[31] Also then, the avant-garde author Ion Călugăru reinvented himself as the folk storyteller "Ion Popescu, aged 84", and published works of prose that borrowed heavily from Popnedea's hajduk accounts—to the point of reproducing their format (printed "on wrapping paper and with all sorts of typos"). Though completed mainly to provide Călugăru with a steady income, these brochures also tested the readers' credulity by introducing faux ballads which were in fact samples of his surreal humor.[42] In a 1928 article, novelist Cezar Petrescu expressed nostalgia for Popescu's work, noting that his literary niche had since descended into ribald verse, "useful for defiling the souls of country lads and country girls, under the pretense of the printed word." In his overview, Petrescu also noted that Popnedea had prepared the public taste for the modernist hajduk stories of Panait Istrati, who had ensured them a "European fame".[51]

A 1942 report from Corlate village indicated that, at the height of World War II, peasants were consuming Popnedea's literature, with a reprint of his stories being bought out within hours.[52] Shortly after a coup in August 1944, the Romanian Communist Party, legalized, began hosting literary directives in its newspaper, Scînteia, with Călugăru invited in as a columnist. In March 1945, Călugăru defended Popescu, the "famous manufacturer of hajduk books", for being a "man of real taste and actual skill", whose writings were "close to the soul of the people." He contrasted him with Theodor Speranția, who wrote literature that was similar in themes, but which added a "chauvinistic mentality" and thereby courting the "state bureaucracy".[53] After 1948, Communist Romania's literary class expressed disdain toward the deceased writer. Writing in early 1950, Ioachim Botez recalled that "Nedea Popescu" had produced "typographic tripe", which made him a "great fortune". According to Botez, his most objectionable works included "fairy-tales, pulled out of his sleeve, with zmei, balauri, căpcăuni, and some of those monstrosities they call vâlve."[54] In a 1957 piece analyzing new works of fiction, scholar Alexandru Piru argued that Eugen Barbu's picaresque novel, Groapa, was "something out of N. D. Popescu's bag of tricks", and as such unconvincing prose.[55]

Some five years later, Caragiale expert Șerban Cioculescu mentioned Popescu as being "presently forgotten";[56] the exact same phrasing was used by Boia in 1985.[57] Popescu's thematic links with Sadoveanu, his rejection by Caragiale, and his overall didactic qualities were again being explored in the mid-to-late 1960s. In 1965, as Dinu Cocea began filming in Sinaia the historical epic Haiducii, writer Dragoș Nerva argued that the project was dependent on Popnedea's fiction, which thus had a chance of being revisited.[7] In 1968, Petru Vintilă, who was himself a children's author, chided the specialized publishing house, Editura Tineretului, for never having reissued a book by Popescu. As he noted in that piece, Sadoveanu's "enthusiastic appraisals" of the hajduk narratives were enough to guarantee their value.[58] During the 1970s, literary critic Mihai Ungheanu carried out a posthumous polemic with cultural sociologist Mihai Ralea, who had argued that Romanian literary culture was naturally adverse to novels. As Ungheanu put it at the time, "N. D. Popescu, fondly remembered by some of Romania's greatest writers", had produced an "industry", whose very existence disproved Ralea's claims.[59]

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Aurel Sasu (ed.), Dicționarul biografic al literaturii române, Vol. II, p. 409. Pitești: Editura Paralela 45, 2004. ISBN 973-697-758-7
  2. ↑ Brănișteanu, p. 1
  3. 1 2 Șerban Cioculescu, "Breviar. O bibliografie binevenită", in România Literară, Issue 49/1981, p. 7
  4. ↑ Brănișteanu, p. 1
  5. ↑ Brănișteanu, p. 1
  6. ↑ Brănișteanu, p. 1
  7. 1 2 3 4 Dragoș Nerva, "Corespondență. Autorul Haiducilor", in Contemporanul, Issue 38/1965, p. 2
  8. ↑ "A eșitŭ de suptŭ tiparŭ Calendarŭ pentru Toțĭ pe Anul 1870", in Romanulu, November 1, 1869, p. 863
  9. ↑ George Muntean, "Însemnări despre folclor și literatura cultă", in Steaua, Vol. XX, Issue 2, February 1969, p. 31
  10. ↑ Mihai Gafița, "În pregătirea Congresului Educației Politice și al Culturii. Evocarea istoriei", in România Literară, Issue 10/1976, p. 3
  11. ↑ Boia, pp. 67–68
  12. 1 2 Alexandru Farcaș, "Bucureștii de la periferie. Romanțuri și romane de veac XIX", in Contemporanul, Vol. XXV, Issue 4, April 2014, p. 26
  13. ↑ Serafim Duicu, "Paralexe. Literatura Independenței", in Vatra, Vol. VII, Issue 74, May 1977, p. 8
  14. ↑ Alexandru Zub, "Mircea cel Mare – 600. Un simbol al demnității colective", in Cronica, Vol. XXI, Issue 38, September 1986, p. 2
  15. ↑ Alexandru Piru, "Evocări: 1877. Literatura română și idealul național", in Luceafărul, Vol. XX, Issue 20, May 1877, p. 8
  16. 1 2 Ion Pătrașcu, "O veche lucrare despre: Războiul pentru independența de stat a României", in Înainte, July 21, 1976, p. 2
  17. ↑ Brănișteanu, p. 1
  18. ↑ Cioculescu (1974), p. 249
  19. ↑ Vicu Mândra, "Istorism și universalitate în dramaturgia românească dintre 1850—1918", in Viața Românească, Vol. XXV, Issue 1, January 1972, p. 82
  20. ↑ Cioculescu et al., p. 267
  21. ↑ Cioculescu et al., p. 913
  22. ↑ Brănișteanu, p. 1
  23. 1 2 3 Emil Fagure, "Cronica teatrală", in Adevărul, February 27, 1902, p. 1
  24. ↑ Brănișteanu, p. 2
  25. ↑ Iulian Boldea, "Vatra-dialog cu Florin Manolescu. 'Prin stil eu înțeleg nu atît felul special în care e scris un anumit text, cît mai ales întreaga lui personalitate literară'", in Vatra, Vol. XLV, Issues 535–536, November 2015, pp. 14–15
  26. ↑ Cioculescu (1974), p. 249
  27. ↑ Ștefan Cazimir, Caragiale față cu kitschul, p. 101. Bucharest: Cartea Românească, 1988. See also Cioculescu et al., pp. 308–309
  28. ↑ George Munteanu, "Eminescu și Macedonski (I)", in Tribuna, Vol. XVI, Issue 2, January 1972, p. 4
  29. ↑ Cioculescu (1974), pp. 245–246
  30. 1 2 George Ranetti, "Cronica Teatrală. Teatrul Național—Păstorița Carpaților", in Universul, February 24, 1902, p. 2
  31. 1 2 3 Ar., "Note. Câțiva povestitori", in Mișcarea, July 27, 1924, p. 1
  32. ↑ Constantin Litzica, "Sfintele Săptămînei", in Convorbiri Literare, Vol. XXXII, Issue 2, February 1898, pp. 142–143
  33. ↑ Cioculescu et al., p. 308
  34. ↑ Ștefan Orășanu, "Recensiunĭ. Octav-George Lecca: Familiile boereștĭ romîne", in Convorbiri Literare, Vol. XXXIV, Issue 6, June 1900, pp. 513–515
  35. 1 2 Nicolae Iorga, "Calendarele ca factor cultural", in Sămănătorul, Vol. IV, Issue 42, October 1905, p. 762
  36. ↑ Brănișteanu, p. 1
  37. ↑ Ion Rotaru, O istorie a literaturii române. Vol. II: de la 1900 pînă la cel de-al doilea război mondial, p. 249. Bucharest: Editura Minerva, 1972
  38. ↑ Dumitru Pop, "Ion Agîrbiceanu și patrimoniul popular", in Steaua, Vol. XIII, Issue 9, September 1962, pp. 105–106
  39. ↑ Constantin Daicoviciu, "Citindu-l pe Agîrbiceanu", in Steaua, Vol. XIII, Issue 9, September 1962, p. 12
  40. 1 2 3 4 "Informațiuni", in Viitorul, June 12, 1921, p. 4
  41. ↑ Brănișteanu, p. 1
  42. 1 2 Sașa Pană, "Documente – mărturii. Moș Ion Popescu", in România Literară, Issue 22/1969, p. 13
  43. ↑ Mihail Platon, "Prima emisiune a timbrelor poștale din Moldova 'Cap de zimbru'", in Curentul, December 25, 1943, p. 12
  44. ↑ "Informațiuni", in Lupta, October 17, 1890, p. 3
  45. ↑ "Nouĭ și senzaționale amănunte asupra atentatuluĭ contra primuluĭ-ministru", in Universul, December 11, 1909, p. 1
  46. ↑ "Furtul de documente de la arhiva statului", in Dimineața, July 2, 1911, p. 4
  47. ↑ Paul Cernat, Avangarda românească și complexul periferiei: primul val, p. 107. Bucharest: Cartea Românească, 2007. ISBN 978-973-23-1911-6
  48. ↑ Șerban Cioculescu, "Breviar. 100 de ani de la nașterea lui Emanoil Bucuța", in România Literară, Issue 26/1987, p. 7
  49. ↑ Perpessicius, "Mențiuni critice. Zaharia Stancu, Rădăcinile sînt amare (I)", in Luceafărul, Vol. II, Issue 5, March 1959, p. 7
  50. ↑ "Cele din urmă știri", in Viitorul, June 13, 1921, p. 4
  51. ↑ Cezar Petrescu, "Pornografie pentru popor", in Curentul, June 9, 1928, p. 1
  52. ↑ Pamfil Șeicaru, "Experiența de la Corlatele", in Curentul, April 19, 1942, p. 1
  53. ↑ Ion Călugăru, "Cultură și arte. Simple însemnări. Th. Speranția și urmașii săi", in Scînteia, March 12, 1945, p. 2
  54. ↑ Ioachim Botez, "Casa Scânteii. Suta lui Sănducu", in România Liberă, January 21, 1950, p. 5
  55. ↑ Alexandru Piru, "Teorie și critică. Din aspectele romanului actual", in Viața Romînească, Vol. X, Issue 12, December 1957, pp. 128–129
  56. ↑ Cioculescu (1974), p. 245
  57. ↑ Boia, p. 67
  58. ↑ Petru Vintilă, "Ce citesc copiii noștri?", in România Liberă, April 21, 1968, p. 2
  59. ↑ Mihai Ungheanu, "Note la un studiu vechi", in Cronica, Issue 11/1976, p. 2

References

  • Lucian Boia, "Sur la diffusion de la culture européenne en Roumanie (XIXe siècle et début du XXe siècle)", in Analele Univesității București. Istorie, Vol. XXXIV, 1985, pp. 51–69.
  • Barbu Brănișteanu, "Istoria unuĭ calendar popular. Ca să nu zic: istoria unuĭ scriitor popular", in Adevărul, December 29, 1905, pp. 1–2.
  • Șerban Cioculescu, "Caragialeana. Varietăți filologice (II)" and "Cronologie", in Viața Romînească, Vol. XV, Issue 6, June 1962, pp. 245–258.
  • Șerban Cioculescu, Ovidiu Papadima, Alexandru Piru (eds.), Istoria literaturii române. III: Epoca marilor clasici. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1973.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.