Oriental elements in the Romanian cultural identity between oblivion, denial and adaptation (an overview of the problem)

Due to the historical and geopolitical context, Romanian culture developed in a hinterland between Eastern and Western Europe. The building of the modern Romanian state in the 19th century was accompanied by a programmatic denial or misrepresentation of its Oriental heritage. This denial began with the Latin-obsessed “Transylvanian School” (Şcoala Ardeleană) and remained an important element in the critical direction of “Junimea” (Titu Maiorescu).
In the 20th century, historian N. Iorga studied and evaluated more objectively the complexity and the impact of this heritage on the country’s cultural identity, while other intellectuals and theologians (for example N. Crainic, D. Stăniloae, S. Mehedinţi) proclaimed the genuine originality of Romanian culture and stressed the superiority of autochtonous values, based on the Romanian orthodox religion.
The Communist regime reinforced this tendency with its “protochronist” propaganda (which claimed Romanian pre-eminence in all aspects of life) with all its grotesque manifestations. The issue of the Oriental heritage has reappeared over the last decades in some debates in the media, in a few articles and papers, but Romanian intellectuals treated it in an inconsistent way and failed to produce a public discourse going beyond the cultural ambivalence or to reassess the role of the Oriental heritage in the Romanian cultural identity.

Due to the historical and geopolitical context, Romanian culture developed in a hinterland between Eastern and Western Europe. The building of the modern Romanian state in the 19th century was accompanied by a programmatic denial or misrepresentation of its Oriental heritage. This denial began with the Latin-obsessed “Transylvanian School” (Şcoala Ardeleană) and remained an important element in the critical direction of “Junimea” (Titu Maiorescu).
In the 20th century, historian N. Iorga studied and evaluated more objectively the complexity and the impact of this heritage on the country’s cultural identity, while other intellectuals and theologians (for example N. Crainic, D. Stăniloae, S. Mehedinţi) proclaimed the genuine originality of Romanian culture and stressed the superiority of autochtonous values, based on the Romanian orthodox religion.
The Communist regime reinforced this tendency with its “protochronist” propaganda (which claimed Romanian pre-eminence in all aspects of life) with all its grotesque manifestations. The issue of the Oriental heritage has reappeared over the last decades in some debates in the media, in a few articles and papers, but Romanian intellectuals treated it in an inconsistent way and failed to produce a public discourse going beyond the cultural ambivalence or to reassess the role of the Oriental heritage in the Romanian cultural identity.