The Multicultural Patrimony of Romania European Synthesis between the Latin Occident and the Byzantine Orient oan!

!"urel Pop ntroduction The term patrimony is deri#ed from the Latin root pater$ with the meanin% of father or parent& n other words$ patrimony is the herita%e left by our parents$ a herita%e that must be 'ept$ enriched and carried forward& Romania holds$ in this respect$ a herita%e uni(ue within Europe& )e mainly refer to a certain part of Romania$ a re%ion that borders the confluence of )estern and Eastern Europe$ a re%ion %enerically referred to as Transyl#ania*& The historical destiny of Transyl#ania can only be comprehended on the bac'%round of a wider area$ comprisin% se#eral countries$ amon%st them the other two nei%hborin% principalities +,ara Rom-neasc. or /)alachia borderin% 0un%ary1 2 3n%ro#lahia and Moldo#a or /)alachia borderin% Russia1 2 Ruso#lahia4$ characterized by the intertwinin% of #arious elements of culture and ci#ilization& The name Transyl#ania +ha#in% as first #ersion Ultrasilvana4 seems (uite e5otic and old$ althou%h$ in spite of its Latin form$ is does not date bac' to "nti(uity$ but merely to the turn of the *st and 6nd millennia "7$ its meanin% bein% /o#er the woods1 or /beyond the woods16& Today the name Transyl#ania commonly refers to a wide area +of almost *88$888 s(uare 'ilometers4$ situated north of the Southern 9arpathians +'nown as Transyl#anian "lps4 and )est of the Oriental 9arpathians$ which is a part of Romania that represents around :8; of the surface of the country& The present day population of Transyl#ania is around <&= million people +o#er a third of the population of Romania4$ with <:; bein% ethnic Romanians$ about *>; 0un%arians and the rest bein% Roma +?ypsies4$ Sla#s$ ?ermans$ etc& This Transyl#ania +in 0un%arian Erdly$ in ?erman Siebenbrgen4 of the 6*st century bears the mar's of a tormented past and rather different from what happened in other re%ions of Europe& @rom the #ery first %lance$ it is stri'in% to see$ both in the urban and rural landscape$ the close * See the most recent synthesis on this topicA oan!"urel Pop$ Thomas BC%ler$ "ndrDs Ma%yari +coordinators4$ History of Tranylvania$ E #ols& +9luF!Bapoca$ 688G!68*84& 6 See &!"& Pop$ Romanians and Hungarians from the 9th to the 14th entury! The "enesis of the Transylvanian #edieval State +9luF!Bapoca$ *GGH4$ pp& =!**$ *:8!*=*&

presence of #arious reli%ious edifices$ from Byzantine and Beo!Byzantine domes of Orthodo5 churches to ?othic towers that scrape the s'y and from round arches of Romanes(ue churches to Baro(ue facades of other places of worship& n some areas$ o#er a surface of se#eral hundred s(uare meters$ one may notice Orthodo5 and ?ree'!9atholic churches$ ne5t to Roman!9atholic$ 9al#inist$ Lutheran or 3nitarian churches$ situated in the #icinity of a syna%o%ue& @or instance$ in the city of 9luF!Bapoca +9lus$ Iolozs#Dr$ Ilausenbur%4$ the traditional capital of the pro#ince$ presently reside fi#e 9hristian prelates who ha#e at least the ran' of a bishop +an Orthodo5 metropolitan bishop$ a ?ree'!9atholic bishop$ a 9al#inist$ a Lutheran and a 3nitarian bishop4$ alon%side an episcopal #icar +Roman!9atholic4$ while within the /BabeJ!Bolyai1 3ni#ersity +with o#er =8$888 Bachelor 7e%ree$ Masters 7e%ree or Ph&7& Students$ and professors etc&4 there are four theolo%ical faculties +uni#ersity departments4$ two of which ha#e the teachin% lan%ua%e Romanian$ while and the other two 0un%arian& Transyl#ania is the only place in Europe with such a comple5 cultural and confessional structure$ the only place where monuments representin% the Romanes(ue and ?othic styles coe5ist with those built in the styles Renaissance$ Byzantine$ Baro(ue or e#en the one referred to as Secession +"rt Bou#eau$ Modern Style$ Ku%endstil4& Beyond Transyl#ania$ towards the East$ the Romanes(ue style disappears completely$ while the ?othic melts into the Molda#ian style$ of an old Romanian world$ which was spiritually torn between 9onstantinople +the Bew Rome4 and the Third Rome +Moscow4$ on the path of /Byzantium after Byzantium1 +accordin% to the e5pression of Bicolae or%a4 or as 7mitri Obolens'i would ha#e said of the Byzantine ommon$ealthE! n a certain sense$ Transyl#ania is a miniature Europe$ which comprises at the same time the basic ethnic %roups +Romanic$ ?ermanic$ and Sla#ic$ plus the @inno!3%ric4 and the main reli%ions and confessions +Orthodo5$ 9atholic$ Kewish$ Protestant and Beo!Protestant cults etc&4 which %i#e personality to the continent itself& n this Transyl#anian world$ durin% the Middle "%es there was an interconnection of spiritual models of Eastern +Orthodo54 and )estern +9atholic4 life$ while modern times brou%ht alon% other important components$ such as Protestant$ Kewish or Beo!Protestant& "ll of these models were$ for lon%er or shorter periods of time$ in dan%er$ they were ri#als and in constant dispute$ endan%erin% their #ery e5istence$ but in the end they functioned concurrently influencin% each other$ conferrin% uni(ueness to the Transyl#anian world$ therefore 'nown$ in certain circles$ as a world of toleran%e& E Bicolae or%a$ &y'an%e apr(s &y'an%e +Bucharest$ *G<*4L 7mitri Obolens'y$ The &y'antine ommon$ealth) Eastern
Europe *++,14*- +London$ *G<*4L &!"& Pop$ MBisanzio dopo BisanzioA la realtN e lOereditN imperiale nellOEuropa centro! orientaleM$ Pn "ndrea Piras +ed&4$ .mperia! Esperien'e imperiali nella storia d/Europa +Rimini$ 688>4$ pp& 6G!:6&

The nhabitants of Transyl#ania The Romanians of Transyl#ania$ Fust as the other Romanians located South and East of the 9arpathians$ are part of the Romanic people and spea' a Beo!Latin lan%ua%e$ same as the talians$ the @rench$ Spanish$ Portu%uese$ 9atalan etc& They are 9hristians of Eastern of Byzantine rite$ 9hristened %radually$ in the Latin lan%ua%e$ startin% with their 7aco!Roman ancestors$ but or%anized canonically from an ecclesiastical point of #iew only at the end of the first millennium$ under the influence of the first Bul%arian 9zarate$ which temporarily e5tended its rei%n north of the 7anube and e#en north of the 9arpathians:& The 0un%arians$ of @inno!3%ric descent and ha#in% come from the East$ were con#erted to 9hristianity in )estern manner around the year *888$ mar'ed by the baptism of their 7u'e QaF'$ who became Iin% Stephen +GG<!*8E>4& 9hristian 0un%ary %radually e5tended its domination o#er #ast surroundin% territories$ includin% Transyl#ania$ con(uered and or%anized accordin% to the )estern model of the **th and *Eth centuries& @ollowin% an initial indecision between Rome and 9onstantinople$ the orientation of the 0un%arian country towards the Roman faith became more and more clear& 7urin% the con(uest if surroundin% re%ions$ 0un%ary used its status of /apostolic 'in%dom1$ founded within the /patrimony of Saint Peter1$ moti#atin% its warrior ad#ancement towards the east by the need to fi%ht a%ainst /pa%ans$ heretics and schismatics1=& 3nder such circumstances$ the Transyl#anian Romanians$ identified as /schismatics1$ could no lon%er$ startin% with the *:th century$ form an Estate +pri#ile%ed %roup4 as in the case of nobles$ Sa5ons and Sze'lers$ all 9atholic nor could they participate in the e5ercise of power& n the **th!*:th centuries$ the demo%raphic and ethnic outloo' of Transyl#ania was di#ersified with new populations& The 0un%arians came from the west$ especially the #alleys of SomeJ and Mures$ when Transyl#ania was con(uered and subse(uently& Other distinct and different %roups were the Sze'lers and the Sa5ons& The Sze'lers$ of contro#ersial ori%in +probably Tur'ic4$ but spea'ers of 0un%arian$ came from the Borth!)est to the South!East$ in se#eral sta%es$ to%ether with the ad#ancement of the 0un%arian con(uestL initially they are historically mentioned in : &!"& Pop$ MLo sla#ismo culturale ed i Romeni nel Medioe#oM$ Pn 9esare "lzati$ Marco ?ruso#in$ Ser%io Ta#ano
+eds&4$ 0/eredit1 di irillo e #etodio! 2maggio a 3ittorio 4eri! 5tti del 416 %onvegno "ori'ia) 77,74 novembre 7++8 +?orizia$ 688G4$ pp& GE!*88L &!"& Pop$ MLa Roumanie en EuropeA entre lOOccident latin et lOOrient byzantinM$ Pn 78 le9ons d/histoire$ PrRface de Kean!BoSl Keanneney +Paris$ 688G4$ pp& 6<E!6>8&

= PDl En%el$ The Realm of St! Stephen! 5 History of #edieval Hungary :9*,1*7; +London!Bew Tor'$ 688*4!

9riJana +Byhar4$ then on the T-rna#e +around **=84$ only to find them around the year **G8!*688 in the east and south!east of Transyl#ania$ where they still li#e todayH& The Sa5ons +who were mostly ?erman4 came as /Royal %uests1 + hospites regales4 from 9entral and )estern Europe$ predominantly from the ?erman area$ in the *6th and *Eth century& Their first colonies are attested in **:>$ in the re%ion of "lba +@ehRr$ )eiss4& O#er the ne5t decades they settled in the south of Transyl#ania between Or.Jtie Ji Baraolt +pushin% some of the Sze'lers a little towards the east4$ in ,ara B-rsei +BUrzenland4 and the re%ion of BistriVa +BWsen$ in the north! west of Transyl#ania4<& The impulse of the ?erman colonization of ,ara B-rsei was due the Teuton Ini%hts$ brou%ht here temporarily e5actly ei%ht centuries a%o +in *6**4 and later mo#ed +after *66=4 to the north of Europe& @urthermore$ it must be noted that$ Fust li'e throu%hout 0un%ary$ until *E=8$ all Transyl#anian towns$ had an o#erwhelmin% maFority of ?erman population>& The creators of western type urban life$ of the Transyl#anian bur%s$ were the ?ermans +Sa5ons4& Their s'ill and tenacity are still #isible today in old towns such as Sibiu +0ermannstadt4$ BraJo# +Ironstadt4$ Si%hiJoara +Scheesbur%4$ BistriVa +BWsen4 or 9luF +Ilausenbur%4$ in #illa%es with fortified churches in the south of Transyl#ania$ in statues$ in crafted products on display in museums etc& The Sze'lers and Sa5ons$ )estern style 9hristians$ who came to Transyl#ania in an or%anized manner$ in a%reement with the policy of the central 0un%arian power$ recei#ed relati#ely compact territories to inhabit and were rewarded with pri#ile%es& Transyl#ania was throu%hout the entire Middle "%es a distinct country +regnum Transilvaniae4 within the 0un%arian Iin%dom +regnum Hungariae4$ lead by a #oi#ode +Fust li'e the nei%hborin% )allachia and Moldo#a4$ appointed by the 'in% of 0un%ary and considered one of the hi%hest di%nitaries in the 'in%dom& The 7ouble nheritance of Romanians Let us return to the Romanians$ who are around G8; of the population of contemporary Romania& The Romanians found themsel#es$ since the end of their ethno%enesis +the >th!Gth centuries4 on the border line of two of the %reatest cultural and confessional areas of Europe$ the Latin and 9atholic area$ on one side and the Byzantine!Sla#ic and Orthodo5 area$ on the other& H 0ermann ?usztD# MihDly$ Se%uii! .storie) %ultur<) identitate +Miercurea 9iuc$ 688G4$ pp& =!6G& < Thomas BC%ler$ 5=e'area sa=ilor >n Transilvania +BucureJti$ *GG64& > KenX SzUcs$ MThe Peoples of Medie#al 0un%aryM$ Pn @erenc ?latz +ed&4$ Ethni%ity and So%iety in Hungary +Budapest$
*GG84$ p& *<L &!"& Pop$ The Religious Situation of the Hungarian ?ingdom in the Thirteenth and @ourteenth enturies$ Pn 9elia 0aw'esworth) Muriel 0eppell$ 0arry Borris +eds&4$ Religious Auest and Bational .dentity in the &alCans +London$ 688*4$ pp& <>!G8&

Some authors$ such as Samuel 0untin%ton$ in the 68th century$ this /frontier1 as a precise and ri%orous separation line alon% the arch of the 9arpathians$ a line which had supposedly set for eternity the non!European destiny of Romanians& On one part of the /line1$ to the west$ there seemed to be the peoples +nations4 who were 9atholic and Protestant$ ?ermanic and Romance$ creators of ci#ilization and culture$ enterprisin% and tenacious$ European by e5cellence$ while on the other side$ towards the east and south!east$ there were supposed to be the Orthodo5 peoples$ who were Sla#ic$ sta%nant and traditionalist$ /oriental1$ a sort of connection /isthmus1 to "sia& )e consider this Fud%ment to be simplistic and superficial$ with no real support& n fact$ Romanians$ 0un%arians$ "lbanians$ Baltic peoples and others can only fit #a%uely in this structure& @or instance$ Romanians are not Sla#ic$ yet they are Orthodo5$ while the Polish are Sla#ic$ yet they are 9atholicY The frontier the Romanians are placed on really does e5ist$ but it is not a line$ but a stretch of land a few hundred 'ilometers wide$ which starts from the Baltic Sea and ends with the Lower 7anube and "driatic Sea& n this #ast re%ion$ )estern and Eastern spirituality ha#e constantly interfered$ from an official and elitist le#el to the le#el of e#eryday life of the commoners& 0istorical e#idence show that in this area$ durin% Medie#al times$ there were people and communities that adopted concurrently$ for a period of time$ a double identity +Byzantine and Latin$ Orthodo5 and 9atholic$ 9hristian and slamic$ Kewish and 9hristian etc&4$ in order to be able to manifest themsel#es within the society$ to assert themsel#es$ to sur#i#e or to adFust to re(uirements& Therefore$ in 'in%doms$ principalities$ and czarates such as 0un%ary$ Poland!Lithuania$ the Romanian Principalities$ Bul%aria$ Serbia$ there are references both to Byzantine +Orthodo54 church hierarchies$ as well as Latin +9atholic4$ which e5ist concomitantly$ /li#e alon%side1 on the same territories$ transform etc& @urthermore$ in countries considered 9atholic$ such as the 'in%dom of the "rpadians or Ka%ellons$ where the official church was )estern$ certain testimonies indicate that durin% the *Eth!*Hth centuries there were considerable proportions +sometimes almost half4 of Orthodo5 population$ who had the correspondin% churches$ monasteries$ bishoprics and metropolitan bishoprics& Li'ewise$ in the Romanian Principalities +Molda#ia and )allachia4$ alon%side the official Orthodo5 hierarchy$ there are Latin +9atholic4 dioceses$ for the rather numerous population$ mostly urban$ that had come from Transyl#ania$ Poland$ taly etc& "s such$ the o#erlaps in this wide frontier area ha#e ma5imum le#el& The Romanian people$ which comprises today around E8 million people$ who mostly li#e north of the 7anube$ is$ Fust as it was in the Middle "%es$ the most numerous people in South!East Europe& t is the only sur#i#in% heir of Eastern RomanityG$ the only one who is isolated from the G 0aralambie Mih.escu$ 0a romanit dans le sud,est de l/Europe$ BucureJti$ *GGE$ passim&

lar%e Latinity mass$ the only European Roman people whose lan%ua%e has a Sla#ic superstratum*8$ the only Roman people of Eastern 9hristian rite +Orthodo54$ the only Roman people whose elites in the Middle "%es had Sla#onic as lan%ua%e of reli%ion$ chancery and culture$ the only European Roman people who li#ed under communist dictatorship and isolation$ the Roman people with the least 'nown history by the )est$ the European people often lin'ed to the name of a #ampire 7racula and to an odious dictator 9eauJescu etc& Be#ertheless$ throu%h a fundamental part of their identity$ Romanians claim their herita%e from the )est$ and throu%h another from the East and South!East Europe& The issue of the cultural Sla#onism in Medie#al Romanians** is a matter which can clarify a series of these apparent parado5es$ can ma'e Romanian identity more comprehensible and can throw li%ht o#er the cultural!reli%ious rapport of the 9atholic )est and the Orthodo5 East& t is not easy to clarify the issue of this cultural Sla#onism$ tied to the name of a people of Romanic ori%in$ spea'er of a Beo!Latin lan%ua%e$ with an ethnic name +ethnonym4 which comes without a doubt from that of the Eternal 9ity Rome and the tri!continental state it created *6& 9ultural Sla#onism cannot howe#er be totally separated from Orthodo5y in the case of Romanians$ as Orthodo5y was to a %reat e5tent the #ector of Sla#onism*E& Therefore$ the first (uestion which must be answeredA how did the Romanians ! a Romanic and Latinophone people ! come to embrace the Orthodo5 @aithZ 9ultural Sla#onism of Romanians *8 9arlo Ta%lia#ini$ 0e origini delle lingue neolatine$ ed& Q $ Bolo%na$ *G<6L #ersiunea rom-neasc. idem$ 2riginile limbilor neolatine! .ntrodu%ere >n filologia romani%<$ coord& "le5andru Biculescu$ BucureJti$ *G<<$ pp& 6=E!6=<& ** Petre P& Panaitescu$ D4erioada slavon<D la romEni =i ruperea de %ultura 5pusului$ Pn idem$ ontribuFii la istoria %ulturii romEne=ti$ ediVie de Sil#ia Panaitescu$ BucureJti$ *G<*$ pp& 6>!:G& *6 )hen one spea's of the cultural Sla#onism or of Sla#ic culture in relation to Romanians in the Middle "%es$ one must always consider that the common people$ who were illiterate [ uneducated$ had a culture of their own$ popular$ oral$ anonymous$ and collecti#e$ with stron% roots in late Latinity& This is ob#ious from the spo'en lan%ua%e$ from the specificity of the popular[fol' #erse +similar to the one inherited from Qul%ar Latin4 from pro#erbs$ imprecations$ satirical e5tempore #erses +stri%.turi4$ incantations +desc-ntece4$ wood art etc& *E oan!"urel Pop$ .l ristianesimo presso i Romeni G tra 2%%idente e 2riente$ Pn #ol& M Romeni e la Santa Sede& Miscellanea di studi di storia ecclesiasticaM$ a cura di on 9-rFa$ Bucarest!Roma$ 688:$ pp& *E!*>&

n the Middle "%es as 'nown one cannot ima%ine written culture outside the church& The church was the hi%h patron of culture$ of all its compartments$ of spiritual institutions and creations in %eneral& Once the Sla#onic litur%y was adopted by the church namely Sla#onic as a lan%ua%e of reli%ion the other written materials were also adapted to the Sla#onic model& Therefore$ e#en thou%h ethnic Sla#onism disappears north of the 7anube in the *6th!*Eth centuries$ the Romanians 'ept as a precious tradition the reli%ious and political culture of the Sla#s for about another four centuries$ as well as the 9yrillic alphabet until the first half of the *Gth century& "n important testimony re%ardin% this medie#al dualism of Romanians$ who had a written reli%ious lan%ua%e +Sla#onic4 and a spo'en #ernacular lan%ua%e +Romanian$ of Latin ori%in4 dates prior to *:<E and belon%s to Bicholas$ bishop of Modrusa$ a close collaborator of Pope Pius
*:

& "t the time when

Enea Sil#io Piccolomini +the future abo#ementioned Pope4 was draftin% his comprehensi#e %eo%raphic writin%$ where he re#ealed in detail the theory of the Roman ori%ins of Romanians +accompanied by some fantasist ethimolo%ical deductions4$ Bicholas of Modrusa$ in the paper He bellis "othorum$ wroteA /The Romanians brin% as ar%ument of their ori%in the fact that e#en thou%h they all use \in writin%] the Moesian lan%ua%e$ which is llyric$ they spea' since infancy a popular lan%ua%e$ which is Latin$ whose use they ne#er abandonedL and when they meet stran%ers that they try to con#erse with$ they as' them whether they spea' Roman lan%ua%e1*=& The testimony of Bicholas of Modrusa +who tra#eled to 9entral!Eastern Europe$ personally spo'e to the bishop of Oradea$ the humanist oan Qitez$ and in *:HE met$ at the court of Mathias 9or#inus$ the Romanian Prince Qlad the mpaler$ later to be 'nown as 7raculaY4 is important for two reasonsA *4 it %oes to show that certain Romanians had the conscience of their Romanity in the Middle "%es and 64 that they themsel#es noticed the distinction between the function of the Romanian lan%ua%e +Latin4 used as means of oral communication +loIuuntur4 and that of the Sla#onic lan%ua%e +Moesian4 used to e5press written culture +utantur4*H& The Sla#onic Lan%ua%e was tau%ht as a lan%ua%e of reli%ion [ worship in the monasteries of the Romanian Principalities and it was a dead lan%ua%e$ with certain influences of the li#e Sla#ic *: ^erban Papacostea$ "ene'a statului >n evul mediu romEnes%! Studii %riti%e$ 9luF!Bapoca$ *G>>$ p& 66<& *= MQalachi ori%inis suae illud praecipuum prae se ferunt ar%umentum$ (uod (uam#is Mysorum lin%ua$ (uae llyrica est$ omnes utantur$ #ernaculo tamen sermone hoc est latino haud prorsus obsoleto ab incunabulis lo(uunturL et cum i%notis con%ressi$ dum lin%uae e5plorant commercium$ an Romane lo(ui nolint interro%antM +?io#anni Mercati$ Boti'ie varie sopra Bi%%olJ #odrusiense$ Pn MOpere MinoriM$ Q$ 9ittN del Qaticano$ *GE<$ p& 6:<4& *H ^& Papacostea$ op!%it!$ p& 66>&

lan%ua%es +Bul%arian$ Serbian$ Russian4 and of the Romanian lan%ua%e& The Sla#onic lan%ua%e used by Romanians in church was the same lan%ua%e that 9yril and Methodius employed to translate reli%ious boo's when the Sla#s were 9hristianized& The main reli%ious te5ts written by Romanians for Romanians date to the *:th!*<th centuries$ from that period ha#in% been 'ept chronicle te5ts +historio%raphy4 law boo's +le%al literature4$ stories and chancery papers +especially property deeds4$ princely orders$ diplomatic and pri#ate correspondence& There were centers of Sla#onic writin% in monasteries and near churches$ but also in the chanceries of princely courts and from towns& Sla#onic was also tau%ht in the princely court and in certain boyar courts& Subse(uently$ princely academies were created in the Sla#onic lan%ua%e& E#en since the *Hth century there are important libraries$ especially in metropolitan bishoprics$ bishoprics$ monasteries and churches& The printin% press$ introduced by the Romanians in *=8>$ was also initially in Sla#onic$ passin% only a few centuries later to boo's printed in Romanian +howe#er still with 9yrillic letters4& n the *<th century there is a true /Orthodo5 rebirth1 within the Romanian Principalities$ accompanied by the printin% of se#eral #aluable boo's in Romanian$ but also in Sla#onic$ throu%h the efforts of Matei Basarab and Qasile Lupu$ supported by Petru Mo#il.$ the Romanian ori%in Metropolitan Bishop of Iie# +which was in Poland at the time4& t is interestin% that the Romanian elite from Transyl#ania and the )estern Parts +4artium4 ! made up of small feudals called /'nezes1$ from clerics and few town_s people also had Sla#onic as lan%ua%e of reli%ion and culture& This is ob#ious from the boo's that circulated$ were written of printed here$ from the inscriptions on the walls +pisanii4 of Orthodo5 churches and monasteries$ the wor'shops of copyists$ from the 'ept archi#es and libraries& @urthermore$ on the re#erse of certain donation documents issued in Latin by the 'in%s of 0un%ary for the abo#ementioned Romanian 'nezes and nobles from certain areas +0aVe%$ Banat4$ in the *=th!*Hth centuries$ there are personal notes made by the beneficiaries in Sla#onic$ proper nouns and a sort of e5planations re%ardin% the Latin contents of the respecti#e documents*<& "ctually$ the church of Romanians from Transyl#ania was in permanent contact with the metropolitan bishoprics and bishoprics from )allachia and Moldo#a& The Metropolitan bishop of )allachia was$ e#en as early as the *:th century$ an /e5arch1 of Transyl#ania and 0un%ary$ so Transyl#anian hierarchs and certain priests and archpriests were ordained south of the 9arpathians& Startin% with the *=th century one may notice a sort of spiritual patrona%e of the Metropolitan Bishopric of Moldo#a o#er the Romanians in Transyl#ania$ especially those from the northern and eastern re%ions of the ntra!9arpathian pro#ince&

*< oan 7r.%an$ Bobilimea romEneas%< din Transilvania >ntre anii 144+,1*14$ BucureJti$ 6888$ pp& *>>!*>G&

The 9risis of Sla#onism and the Return to the Latin model 9ultural Sla#onism namely the use of the Sla#onic lan%ua%e within cultural creations$ in reli%ious$ historical$ literary$ le%al$ philosophical etc& papers$ as well as printed wor's$ as well as within chanceries of state institutions starts to become anachronistic at the end of the Middle "%es and the be%innin% of the Modern )orld +in the *Hth!*<th centuries4& The ade(uate cultural model for a Beo!Latin people$ who was shyly ta'in% the path of modernization$ was the )estern model$ dynamic and inno#ati#e$ as Sla#onism remained anchored in the Eastern tradition& The Sla#onic litur%ical$ cultural$ and chancery lan%ua%e$ placed o#er a Beo!Latin lan%ua%e$ such as Romanian$ did not contribute to the natural e#olution of the Romanian lan%ua%e$ did not stren%then its Latinity$ but this permeated it with scholarly Sla#ic words& Many of the Sla#ic ori%in words in the Romanian lan%ua%e many of which ha#e today a low le#el of circulation$ ha#e become archaic or disappeared alto%ether come from the pea' period of the Romanians_ cultural Sla#onism +the *:th! *Hth centuries4 and not from the times of co!inhabitance between Romanians and their ancestors with the Sla#s +the Hth!*6th centuries4& On the contrary$ western Beo!Latin lan%ua%es$ benefitin% from the constant use of Medie#al Latin in the church$ uni#ersities$ chanceries etc&$ were enriched with new Latinisms$ fortified their literary aspect$ became more harmonious and complete& "fter the Romanians passed to the use of the #ernacular lan%ua%e in writin%$ there remained another contradiction$ namely the perpetual use of the 9yrillic alphabet +typical for many Sla#ic lan%ua%es4 within a Romance lan%ua%e& This alphabet$ inade(uate for the reorientation of the Romanian culture towards its anti(ue roots$ %a#e the impression to non!connoisseurs that Romanian was a Sla#ic lan%ua%e or$ ne#ertheless$ it seriously obstructed[hindered its Latin character& t is howe#er certain that$ followin% the dawns of modernity and the Romanians retyin% re%ular connections to Latinity and the )estern world in %eneral$ cultural Sla#onism with all its aspects appears more and more as a forei%n body which needed to be eliminated& The be%innin%s of written culture in the Romanian lan%ua%e ta'e place in the *=th century$ throu%h certain rotacized [ rotacizin% reli%ious te5ts$ also elaborated in Transyl#ania$ the re%ion with the stron%est western influences& n the same re%ion come to e5ist the first Romanian schools$ the first translations of boo's to Romanian$ the first printed te5ts in Romanian$ as well as writin% with the first Latin characters& Startin% with the *Hth century$ the influence of the Latin and Beo! Latin )est becomes e#er stron%er +especially in Transyl#ania4$ and at the same time the area of Romanian cultural Sla#onism is reduced& The chroniclers of the *<th century write in the Romanian lan%ua%e$ 7imitrie 9antemir +prince of Moldo#a4 is a Early Enli%htenment Scholar$ member of the "cademy of Berlin$ who %reatly uses Latin and Romanian$ while the union of the Transyl#anian

Romanians with the 9hurch of Rome +*HG<!*<8*4 and the Transyl#anian School the main Romanian Enli%htenment current brin% the Romanian culture closer to the )est& "s such$ followin% se#eral centuries of cultural and ecclesiastical Sla#onism$ the Romanian people synchronize their culture to their Beo!Latin character& The first /re#olution1 in this respect too' place by means of the Transyl#anian Romanians$ who became ?ree'!9atholics and promoters of the Enli%htenment current$ durin% the *>th century$ in relation to classic Latinity and Rome& The Latinist current$ althou%h e5a%%erated at a certain point$ made #isible a%ain$ both amon%st Romanians and in Europe$ the Roman descent of the Romanians and the Latin character of the Romanian lan%ua%e$ also contributin% to the permanent and %eneralized enforcement of the Latin alphabet& t demonstrated the absurdity in the perpetuation of a Sla#ic co#erin% [ wrappin% for a Beo!Latin lan%ua%e& "s a result$ around the first half of the *Gth century$ followin% o#er two centuries of alphabetic dualism +e#en in the *Hth century$ writin% in Romanian was sporadically performed usin% the Latin alphabet4$ there was official enforcement of use e5clusi#ely Latin letters& But the most intense and efficient rapprochement of Romanians to the )est$ namely to their old roots as it was said in the national ideolo%y of the time too' place in the *G th century$ than's to the @rench influence in the 7anubian or Romanian Principalities and later in Romania& "n interestin% detail is that this influence came partially durin% the Russian occupation of the 7anubian Principalities +*>6>!*>E:4$ to%ether with the @rench!spea'in% Russian di%nitaries and officers$ who were permeated [ impressed by the @rench model& Subse(uently howe#er$ entire %enerations of youn% Romanians$ especially sons of boyars$ rich townsmen and intellectuals$ studied in @rance$ from where they returned not only with serious 'nowled%e in #arious fields$ but also with the lan%ua%e of Qillon and Moli`re$ which they continued to spea' and spread& Since the *Gth century and until recently$ e#en a %reat part of the communist decades$ the main forei%n lan%ua%e studied in the schools of Romania was @rench& t was not only the #ector of a hi%h ci#ilization and %reat culture$ which became /classic1 as a model$ but also the symbol of the western world$ from which certain currents$ tendencies and forces especially communism were tryin% to isolate the Romanians& E#en today$ Romania continues to be the main francophone country in 9entral and Eastern Europe& @urthermore$ in modern Romanian culture$ the cultural!ideolo%ical current that pri#ile%ed Latinity$ ties with the )est$ synchronizin% Romania to the modern European structures was modern$ pra%matic and pro%ressist$ while the current that supported the 7acian +Tracian4 ori%in$ autochtonist [ local character$ Orthodo5$ Byzantine!Sla#ic tradition mar'ed a conser#ati#e$ obsolete$ lethar%ic trend& n the *Gth and 68th centuries$ the synchronization of Romanian culture and ci#ilization to the )estern world was stren%thened by the influence of ?ermany$ taly and especially the "n%lophone countries& n the end$ in the 68th century placin% between parentheses

the %reatest part of the communist dictatorship re%ime$ far from the %eneral spirit of Romanians the dominant orientation of Romania was towards the European western model$ towards the culture and ci#ilization it promoted& 9ertainly$ this dominant orientation could not erase the specificity or identity of Romanians$ which were built in time$ on the bac'%round of the interconnections between the Latin )est and Byzantine East& 9onclusionsA the 0armony between the )estern and Eastern 9ulture This is the reason why cultural currents and architectonic styles o#erlap on the territory of Romania$ in a type of harmony that won its le%itimacy o#er the centuries& On top of the 7acian traces$ abandoned and %radually buried in the %round$ were built villae rusti%ae and Roman towns$ with temples$ amphitheaters and thermal baths& O#er and between these$ durin% the Middle "%es$ were raised wooden constructions$ modest in proportion and perishable$ for the common people$ but also stone and bric' edifices$ in Byzantine style$ for the elites& The )estern 9hurch +especially throu%h its monastic orders4 and the Sa5ons brou%ht$ in the *6th century$ the Roman fashion$ asserted for some time in the )est& Such a mon' order of Benedictine ori%in the 9istercians ori%inally from @rance$ brou%ht the ?othic model +initially named /the @rench style14$ spread in Transyl#ania since the second half of the *Eth century& The 9istercian monastery from 9-rVa was a focal point of irradiation for the ?othic in the entire southern half of Transyl#ania and not only& This style flourished later and was asserted not only in ecclesiastical architecture$ but also in the secular one$ as well as in sculpture$ paintin%$ in manufacturin% certain artifacts etc& on this ready created traFectory were later affirmed the Renaissance style$ Baro(ue$ Beoclassic etc&$ in a rhythm almost synchronous to the rest of Europe$ althou%h in specific forms$ more modest$ adapted& The "ustrian rei%n$ imposed at the end of the *<th century$ stren%thened$ also by means of 9atholicism$ the western component of Transyl#ania& The Baro(ue found #arious forms of manifestation$ from churches and palaces to lar%e scale military fortifications +such as the Qauban style fortressed from "lba ulia$ Oradea$ "rad$ TimiJoara$ 9luF etc&4& "s well 'nown$ the Romanians did not participate directly in the %reat currents of western culture$ did not build hu%e Roman or ?othic churches$ did not produce heroic epics$ %hansons de geste$ romans %ourtois$ %ommedia dell/arte$ did not ha#e scholastic uni#ersities in the *Eth!*:th centuries$ nor a Renaissance li'e in taly or @rance$ or %reat philosophers$ playwri%hts or fabulists in the *<th!*>th centuries& Be#ertheless$ they had other #alues$ but not the 'ind that created the fame of the western culture& Li#in%$ howe#er$ in the abo#ementioned re%ion of interconnections$ they adopted the influences of western currents and styles$ by means of the e5amples offered by the co!

inhabitant peoples$ populations and %roups& Therefore$ the archaic stone churches in the south!west of historical Transyl#ania +from 7ensuJ$ Strei$ Strei!S-n%eor%iu etc&4 of the *6 th!*:th centuries$ ha#e certain Roman and ?othic elements$ the cathedral from @eleac has o%i#es at windows and ribbed #aults$ the hundreds of modest rural churches$ with their s#elte towers$ scrapin% the s'y$ are placed$ accordin% to some e5e%etes$ in a sort of /wooden ?othic style1& Moreo#er$ the churches of Buco#ina$ belon%in% to the Molda#ian style$ ha#e certain ?othic elements$ or%anically embedded[%rafted o#er the Byzantine bac'%round$ same as the Branco#enesc style of )allachia and Transyl#ania +reflected$ for instance$ in the S-mb.ta de Sus monastery4 is a Romanian Baro(ue style& n the other direction$ the 0un%arians$ Sa5ons and Sze'lers also borrowed in their creations certain motifs$ forms$ details from their Romanian nei%hbors& Reciprocals influences are clearly indicated also between the 0un%arians$ Sa5ons and Sze'lers 9atholic /nations1 +pri#ile%ed %roups4$ the %reater part of which became$ startin% with the second half of the *Hth century$ Protestant& The museum$ as a specialized institution$ preser#es and e5hibits the #alue of the inheritance from the past usin% specific means$ adapted to the re(uirements of the 6* st century& )e would hereby li'e to draw attention to entire open!air museum!areas$ which$ apart from the e#eryday dynamic life they shelter$ come to be li#e conser#ation spaces for past #alues& The old medie#al towns surrounded by walls$ inhabited intra muros$ the still functional churches$ %ates$ wooden houses from S.laF and MaramureJ$ the Baro(ue or Secession towns$ the stone churches from ,ara 0aVe%ului$ the "ustrian fortresses etc& are li#e museums and should not only be re%arded as relics of the past& "ctually$ the past means life +we con#entionally call it past$ but it was a present life for those who li#ed itY4 and lo#e for the past means lo#e for life& 9onse(uently$ the museum$ re%ardless of its form$ becomes a tribute to lifeY Therefore$ it should be underlined the 9arpathian and 7anubian frontier$ far from bein% a demarcation and separation line$ it is a %enerous space of interconnection$ where the two Europes meets$ min%le and come to%ether in ori%inal$ sin%ular and fascinatin% forms& "s such$ the o#erall artistic and cultural patrimony of this space is uni(ue and unrepeatable& The fact that this patrimony e5ists as much as could be 'eptY demonstrates that the enforcement$ throu%hout the centuries$ o#er a collecti#e mentality of confrontation aimed at destruction +which e5isted and caused enou%h irreparable dama%eY4$ of another which promoted co!inhabitance$ under the si%ns of understandin%$ harmony and respect for the #alues of the other&

ACADEMIA ROMN
Centrul de Studii Transilvane

ROMNII
ntre Orientul bizantin i Ocidentul latin
Ioan-Aurel POP

Principatele Romne din secolul al XV-lea pn n secolul XIX: Transilvania, Valahia i Moldova

1878- Mica Romnie n timpul rzboiului Ruso-Turc. La terminarea acestuia independena Romniei a fost recunoscut de comunitatea internaional

1918, Romnia cu provinciile istorice 1940, Romania i teritoriile pierdute n favoarea Rusiei, Ungariei i Bulgariei Romnia n zilele noastre

ROMNIA

ROMNIA

Alba-Iulia (Alba), catedrala romano-catolic, stil romanic, secolul XIII

Lenic (Hunedoara), biseric orthodox (secolul al XIV-lea)

Mnstirea Rme (Alba), vechea biseric (secolul XIII) i noua biseric

Mnstirea Golia (Iai), secolul XVI

Bazna (Sibiu), biserica evanghelic fortificat, secolele XVXVI

Bogdan-Vod Cuhea (Maramure), biseric de lemn, 1718

Catedrala ortrodox Sf. Nicolae din chei (Braov), secolele XIV-XVIII Plopi (Maramure), biseric de lemn, secolul XVIII, monument UNESCO

Ac (satu mare) biserica mnstirii benedictine, secolul XIII Poarta Slajului (Slaj), biseric de lemn, secolul XVII

Herina (Bistria-Nsud), biseric romanic, secolul XIII

Biserica Stavropoleos (Bucureti), 1724, stil brncovenesc

Timioara (Timi), catedrala ortodox, arhitect Ion Traianescu, 1936-1946

Aghireu (Cluj), biseric ortodox de lemn, 1780

Cluj-Napoca (Cluj), biserica romano-catolic, sec. XIV-XV Bucureti (Bucureti), biserica ortodox rus, 1909

Biserica evanghelic (Sibiu), stil gotic, secolele XIVXV

Mnstirea Sucevia, pictur exterioar cu scene din Judecata de apoi (secolul XVI)

Biseric de lemn din Slaj, secolul XVIII, acum la Muzeul Etnografic al Transilvaniei, Cluj

Alba-Iulia (Alba), catedrala ortodox, arhitect Victor tefnescu, 1921-1922

Densu (Hunedoara), biseric ortodox, secolul XIII, vedere general

Catedrala ortodox mitropolitan (Cluj-Napoca), arhitecii C. Pomponiu i G. Cristinel, 1921-1933

Mnstirea Smbta (Braov), ridicat de Constantin Brncoveanu, secolul XVII Catedrala mitropolitan din Sibiu, stil neobizantin, 1902-1906

Mnstirea Prislop (Hunedoara), ridicat de Nicodim din Tismana, n 1404-1405

Mnstirea catolic din Radna (Arad), stil baroc, secolul XVIII

Oradea (Bihor), catedrala Romano-Catolic, arcitect Franz Anton Hillebrand, 1750-1779

Sinagoga din Cluj, n prezent templu memorial, 1886

Iai, Palatul Culturii i biserica Sf. Nicolae

Clnic (Alba), cetatea medieval cu donjonul, biserica evanghelic i casa parohial, secolele XIII-XIV

Castelul Corvinetilor de la Hunedoara, secolul al XV-lea, vedere general

Cetatea de Balt, judeul Alba, castelul Bethlen-Haller, secolul al XVII-lea

Ploieti, Turnul cu ceas al Halelor Centrale, 1930-1935, arhitect Toma T. Socolescu

Sighioara (Mure), Turnul cu ceas, secolul al XV-lea, monument UNESCO

urdeti (Maramure), poart maramurean, secolul al XVII-lea, Monument UNESCO

Alba-Iulia, fortrea, poarta I, secolul al XVII-lea

Dobricul Lpuului (Maramure), biserica de lemn Sfinii Arhangheli, poart, 1740 Richi (Sibiu), biserica sseasc fortificat, poartal, 1500

Biserica romano-catolic Sf. Mihail (Cluj-Napoca), 1349-1450, arhitectur gotic, interior

Sntmrie-Orlea (Hunedoara), altarul bisericii Sf. Fecioar, mai nti catolic (sec. XIII) apoi ortodox (secolele XIV-XV)

Sebe (Alba), biserica evanghelic, secolele XIII-XVI, pictura de altar, detaliu

Biserica de lemn din Slciua (Hunedoara), 1799 pictura mural pe bolta naosului

Biserica de lemn din Slciua (Hunedoara), 1799, altarul

Mnstirea catolic din umuleu-Ciuc, marele altar

Deseti (Maramure), biserica din lemn, secolul XVIII, detaliu, monument UNESCO

Strei (Hunedoara), biseric ortodox, secolul XIII, detaliu al turnului romanic

Castelul Corvinetilor de la Hunedoara, detaliu gotic

Mnstirea Prislop (Hunedoara), ridicat de Nicodim din Tismana ntre anii 14041405, detaliu Timioara (Timi), catedrala ortodox, detaliu

Turn medieval, detaliu fereast

Cldire din Satu Mare, detaliu fereastr, 1900

Cluj-Napoca (Cluj), cas de lemn, detaliu ferestre, Muzeul Etnografic al Transilvaniei

Oradea (Bihor), detaliu arhitectural, 1900

Bucureti, vedere general

Braov, piaa central cu Biserica Neagr

Teatrul Naional din Timioara (Timi), 1923, arhitect Duiliu Marcu Sat maramurean