The Hellenization of ancient Rome is not a rare kind of event in history; “outer” India or the Chinese world have offered several other different examples. Roman civilization was an important part of Hellenistic culture much like present day Japan participates in Western civilization. Our purpose is not to recall this evidence nor to argue for Roman originality. (Where has an acculturation ever been total?) We shall not allow either the forest or the trees to hide thi other and shall ask ourselves rather what “ acculturation” might mean in the case of Rome. For the question of acculturation, which describes so well the present condition of the Third World, is inapplicable to other historic situations. The richness of the past is such that our sociologies or our praxeologies are often nothing other than rationalizations of a particular case in history.

I. Hardly any other mythical creature has enjoyed the ubiquity of the clown: “There are few other myths such as this one about which it can be affirmed without any doubt that they involve the most ancient modes of human expression,” wrote Paul Radin in his famous essay on the figure of the clown among primitive American Indians. “There are few myths which have retained their original characters with so few changes.” The character of the Fool, the Jester, the Joker appears in a clearly identifiable fashion in the most primitive as well as the most highly cultivated groups: among the Greeks as well as the Chinese; in Japanese civilization as well as the Semite world. The medieval juggler is the embodiment of this figure of many aspects who perdures in the theater, especially puppet theater, and in the guise of the circus clown.

The beginnings of modern Romanian culture coincide with the discovery of folk literature. The first to benefit from this true “revelation,” around the middle of the last century, were two of the most authentic representatives of Romanian romanticism: Vasile Alecsandri and Alecu Russo. However, the earliest manifesto of Romanian romanticism was not very explicit in its treatment of the subject, because others who participated in the current—especially Mihail Kogălniceanu and Nicolae Bălcescu— were primarily historians. In 1840 the contensts of Dacia literară, a magazine edited by them, gave literary status to heroic events that had entered into Romanian history; second place was reserved for the beauty of the Romanian countryside; the picturesque and the poetic content of the traditions held by the people who had lived this history and animated this countryside were only third in importance. Now, the term “traditions” could be applied in the same way to different artistic expressions: dance, music or literature.

The logician interested in an account of science that is faithful to the actual practice of science has a number of problems, not the least of which are the following: first, the problem of avoiding psychologism, and second, the problem of having historical sources that are illuminating about the logical turns characterizing a piece of research that ended in discovery.

Spoken language was long thought to be mankind's earliest means of communication, with visual and gestural languages appearing only later. “ And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field;…” (Genesis II, 20). Today, with the most diverse hypotheses in circulation, the only point on which all scholars agree—in this case, a negative one— is that the question of the origins of language remains to be answered; this has little importance for the present study, and we will not dwell on the problem of origins.

The distance, as the crow flies, between the two poles can be covered in twenty hours. Thanks to cartography, telecommunications and the precise measurement of distance, we have exhaustive knowledge of the globe. Nevertheless, we are still so removed from each other that everything, or almost everything, remains to be discovered. Just as the past is not clear to us when it takes the historical route, the present brings us no understanding of human ways. The more we advance in knowledge the more proof we have, as Pascal said, that we know nothing.

Until fairly recently, psycholinguists and linguists have tended to provide an understanding of language without due concern to the situation in which it was spoken; it is as though they have largely considered context to be a static given. Such a viewpoint is rather surprising when most of us could recount instances during a day when our style of speech has changed. For instance, we are aware how often our speech becomes grammatically less complex with our children, that we tend to speak more formally, enunciate more precisely with our superiors, talk more slowly for foreigners, and so forth. Indeed, the nature of the setting, the topic of discourse and the type of person to whom we are talking all interact to determine the way we speak in a particular situation. In many ways, sociolinguistics emerged as an attempt to fill this yawning gap in the language sciences and it has made a tremendous impact on psycholinguistic theory in the last decade. For example, people are now looking at language development not only with an emphasis on how children acquire rules of grammar (their linguistic competence), but also on the process which enables them to use these rules appropriately in different social situations (their communicative competence). Such thinking has also made a contribution to foreign language dearning techniques as educators seem more aware that if people are to become really skilled in another language they should not only know the grammatical rules for its use but the social ones as well.