Homework 2

The chaplain felt most deceitful presiding at funerals, and it would not have astonished him to learn
that the apparition in the tree that day was a manifestation of the Almighty’s censure for the
blasphemy and pride inherent in his function. To simulate gravity, feign grief and pretend
supernatural intelligence of the hereafter in so fearsome and arcane a circumstance as death
seemed the most criminal of offenses. He recalled – or was almost convinced he recalled – the scene
at the cemetery perfectly. He could still see Major Danby standing as somber as a broken stone pillar
on his side, see almost the exact number of enlisted men and almost the exact places in which they
had stood, and the large, loose, triumphant mound of reddish-brown earth, and the massive, still,
depthless sky, so weirdly blank and blue that day that it was almost poisonous. He would remember
them forever, for they were all part and parcel of the most extraordinary event that had ever
befallen him, an event perhaps marvellous, perhaps pathological, - the vision of the naked man in
the tree. How could he explain it? It was not already seen or never seen, and certainly not almost
seen; neither déjà vu, jamais vu or presque vu was elastic enough to cover it. Was it a ghost, then?
The dead man’s soul? An angel from heaven or a minion from hell? Or was the whole fantastic
episode merely the figment of a diseased imagination, his own, of a deteriorating mind, a rotting
brain? The possibility that there really had been a naked man in the tree – two men, actually, since
the first had been joined shortly by a second man clad in a brown moustache and sinister dark
garments from head to toe who bent forward ritualistically along the limb of the tree to offer the
first man something to drink from a brown goblet – never crossed the chaplain’s mind.

Atunci cand tinea o slujba de inmormantare, preotul simtea ca inseala/ca este (cel mai) necinsitit si

nu l-ar fi luat prin suprindere daca afla ca fantasma pe care o vazuses in capac in acea zi era o

manifestare a dezaprobarii Atotputernicului fata de blasfemia si mandria care fac parte din acesta

functie. Sa simulezi gravitatea/seriozitatea, durerea superficala si sa pretinzi ca detii adevarul despre

lume de dincolo intr-un context atat de inspimntoare si misterios ca mortea pareau a fi de deprte

cele mai cumplite infractiuni. Isi amintea perfect -sau cel putin era aproape convins/avea impresia ca

isi amintea- acea scena the la cimitir. Inca putea sa-l vada pe Maiorul Danby stand sobru

ca un stalp de piatra sfaramat intr-o parte, aproape ca putea vedea numrul exact de oameni

inrolati/batrani si mai ca vedea fix locurile in care statusera, si movila acea mare, triumfatoare si

sfaramata de pamant rosiatic, si acel cer imens, lipsit de adancime, nemiscat, atat de neobisnuit de

gol si albastru in acea zi incat il facea sa para otravitor. Mereu o sa-si aminteasca de lucrurile astea,

pentru ca ele erau o parte integranta din cel mai extrardinar eveniment care i se intamplase

vreodata, un eveniment probil minunat sau poate chiar patologic- aparitaia barbatului dezbract din
copac. Cum ar putea explica asta? Nu era deja vazut sau vreodata/niciodata vazut, si in mod cert nu

era aproape vazut ; nici macar termeni precum deja vu, jamis vu sau presque vu nu erau suficienti

pentru a acoperi intelesul/campul semantic / a explica asta. Oare a fost o fantom? sau sufletul vreun

mort? Un inger din rai sau o creatura din Iad? Sau se poate ca acest episod sa fie doar rodul unei

imaginatii bolnave, a propiei lui imaginatii,a unei minti deteriorate, a unui creier putrezit? Preotului

nici nu i-a trecut prin minte posibilitatea ca in acel copac sa fi fost cu adevarat un om dezbracat – 2

oameni de fapt, din moment ce primului i s-a alaturat in scurt timp un l doilea barbat avand o

mustata satena si imbracat din cap pana in picioare intr-un vesmant de un negru infiortor care se

apleca parca facand un ritual peste crenfile copacului pentru a-i oferi primului barbat ceva s bea

dint-un pocar maro.

. `De presupus că scrisoarea la care se refereau dicomesienii o trimisese Fibula. I-o trimisese imediat,
am zis, după ce primise de la mine copia amintită. O scrisoare mânioasă şi cu gelozii de nepoată
batrână care-l certa pe Umilit că se lasă încontinuu păcălit de dicomesieni, care-i vor mereu banii si-i
folosesc numele spre câştigul lor, după cum îl certa pe Umilit că se lăsase înşelat şi o primise la Viena
pe falsa îngrijitoare Zoe Lucescu care n-avea altă misiune decât să-l spioneze şi să-l târasca spre
Dicomesia sau spre Mavrocordat pentru a fi mai bine golit de averi şi moşteniri. Apăs pe termeni,
fiindcă limbajul Fibulei la mânie îl cunosc foarte bine. Limbajul ei devine tot mai violent pe măsură ce
înaintează în vârstă, masculinizarea expresiei luând forme tot mai dure. Sunt sigur că în scrisoarea ei
către Umilit pe Zoe Lucescu n-a scos-o din tot felul de blasfemii şi insulte.

Supposable that the letter to which the Dicomesienii were reffering was sent by Fibula. I said that

she had already sent it after she had received the mentioned copy from me. A letter full of anger

and ofsyntagms which seemed to have been said/written by an gelous old nice// and jelousy of an

old niece, who was scolding the Humiliated because he let himself trciked by the Dicomensieni, who

alwys wanted/were always wanting his money and to use his name for their own befenit. She also

scold him becuse ha had let himself to be tricked to receive in Vienna the false housekeeper Zoe

Lucescu, who didn’t have any other task, but to spy on him and to drag him to Dicomesia or to

Mavrocordat so that they could disspose him of his wealth and inheritance. I m insisting on these

terms, because I know very well how Fibula talks when she is angry. Her languages becomes more

and more violent as she gets older , the masculiniztin of her addresing taking even a more rough

turn. I am sure that in her letter to Humiliated she was reffering to /talking about Zoe Lucescu using
only blasphemies and insults.