Lazăr Șăineanu | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Born | (1859-04-23)April 23, 1859 Ploiești, United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia |
| Died | May 11, 1934(1934-05-11) (aged 75) Paris, France |
| Other names |
|
| Era | 19th century, early 20th century |
| Region | Europe |
| School | Evolutionary linguistics |
Main interests | |
Lazăr Șăineanu (Romanian pronunciation: [ˈlazər ʃəiˈne̯anu], also spelledȘeineanu, bornEliezer Schein;[1]FrancisizedLazare Sainéan,French pronunciation:[lazaʁsa.ine.ɑ̃],[2] orSainéanu; April 23, 1859 – May 11, 1934) was aphilologist,linguist,folklorist and cultural historian born in theUnited Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, today part ofRomania. A specialist in Oriental andRomance studies, as well as a Germanist, he was primarily known for his contribution toYiddish andRomanian philology, his work inevolutionary linguistics, and his activity as aliterary andphilological comparatist. Șăineanu also had innovative contributions to the investigation and anthologizing of Romanian folklore, placed in relation toBalkan andEast Central European traditions, as well as to thehistorical evolution of Romanian in a larger Balkan context, and was a celebrated early contributor to Romanianlexicography. His main initiatives in these fields are a large corpus of collectedfairy tales and the 1896Dicționarul universal al limbii române ("The Universal Dictionary of the Romanian Language"), which have endured among the most popular Romanian scientific works.
A member of thenon-emancipatedJewish-Romanian community, Lazăr Șăineanu stood for theHaskalah (Jewish Enlightenment) ideas, and opted in favour ofJewish assimilation into the Romanian mainstream. His repeated requests fornaturalisation were eventually unsuccessful, but propelled him to the center of a political conflict which opposed theantisemitic current to the advocates of tolerance. In 1901, Șăineanu and his family left theKingdom of Romania and resettled in France, where the scholar lived until his death. Becoming known for his pioneering work to the study ofMiddle French and his investigations into the origins ofargot, as well as for his critical essays on 16th-century writerFrançois Rabelais, he was a recipient of theInstitut de France'sVolney Prize in 1908. The son-in-law of publisherRalian Samitca, Șăineanu was survived by his brother Constantin, a noted lexicographer, journalist andpolemicist.
Eliezer Schein (whose name was originally rendered in Romanian asLazăr Șain[3][4] orShain)[5] was born in the city ofPloiești to impoverished Jewish-Romanian residents. His father, Moisi, was a house painter and amateur artist, who, by the time his son was sixteen, had left to work in the United States.[3][5] Eliezer studied with private tutors from the age of 5, and was admitted into regular school at the age of 10, when he entered second grade.[5] Moisi Schein died shortly after returning to Romania, leaving Eliezer the sole provider for his mother and six siblings.[3][5][6] He was however able to pass hisBaccalaureate, with a thesis on writer and theoristIon Heliade Rădulescu:Ioan Eliad Rădulescu ca grămătic și filolog ("Ioan Eliad Rădulescu as a Grammarian and Philologist").[5]
By 1881, having been exempted from his compulsory term in theRomanian Land Forces as the eldest son of a widow,[6] the young man went on to study at theUniversity of Bucharest's Faculty of Letters.[3][4][5][7] Taught and regarded with admiration by academicBogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu,[4][8] Șăineanu was primarily a student ofetymology,stylistics andsemantics (which formed the basis of his first three studies, published in 1882 and 1887).[1] He published his first study, the 1883Câteva specimene de etimologie populară română ("A Few Samples of Romanian Folk Etymology"), in Hasdeu's magazineColumna lui Traian.[5] By then, Șăineanu had begun contributing toAnuar pentru Israeliți ("The Yearbook forIsraelites"), the Hebraist magazine edited by his friends and fellow scholarsMoses Gaster andMoses Schwartzfeld, which mainly published articles onJewish history and espoused a moderateassimilationist agenda (Haskalah).[9] Gaster also sent Șăineanu's various studies on folklore and linguistics also published inRevista pentru Istorie, Arheologie și Filologie, a review founded and led by Romanian historianGrigore Tocilescu.[9] The direct contacts between the two scholars ended in 1885, when Gaster was expelled from Romania for protesting against the antisemitic measures condoned by theNational Liberal Party cabinet ofIon Brătianu.[10][11]
The 1887Încercare asupra semasiologiei române ("Essay on RomanianSemasiology"), presented by Schein as his graduation paper,[4][12] was retrospectively commended byethnologist Iordan Datcu for its innovative value, and argued by the same commentator to have attracted universally positive reactions from "objective critics".[3] According to Șăineanu's account, it followed closely after semasiology itself had been established as an independent branch by the French academicMichel Bréal.[12] It reportedly earned him the praise of a future adversary theEducation Minister and National Liberal politicianDimitrie Sturdza, who allegedly recommended him to study abroad, reassuring him that, unlike in Gaster's case, "we will receive you back with open arms."[12] Printed by theRomanian Academy's press and prefaced by Hasdeu,[4]Încercare earned Șăineanu theManoah Hillelscholarship, amounting to 5,000lei in gold.[4][5]
Using this grant,[4] he furthered his studies in France, at theUniversity of Paris, under Bréal,Gaston Paris andWilhelm Meyer-Lübke, and later at theÉcole Spéciale des Langues Orientales, where he specialized in the study of Oriental languages.[1] He received hisPh.D. at theUniversity of Leipzig, in theGerman Empire,[4][5][13] his dissertation receiving an award from theInstitut de France.[1] According to historian Lucian Nastasă, the scholar's choice was confirming a common practice of Romanians, who opted to bridge the gap betweenFrancophilia andGermanophilia by frequenting venues in both countries.[14] As Șăineanu wrote to Gaster, he had decided in favor of the "intellectual center"Leipzig becauseKarl Brugmann, "the leading representative of present-day linguistics", worked and taught there.[15] He studied with both Brugmann andAugust Leskien, earning much praise for his work and the right to take his diploma under special circumstances (which took into consideration his previous works, and did not require him to research a full-sized new thesis).[15] Șăineanu was pleased with the scientific rigor of his German teachers, but believed the system to suffer greatly in the matter ofpedagogy, and considered French academics much more talented in this respect.[15] The young scholar published two works during the interval:Legenda Meșterului Manole la grecii moderni ("TheMeșterul Manole Legend among the ModernGreeks") and his Ph.D. thesis onRomanian folklore,[5]Les Jours d'emprunt ou les jours de la vieille ("The Borrowed Days or The Old Woman's Days").[5][16] The latter was hosted by Gaston Paris' journalRomania.[16]
He returned to Romania as a teacher ofLatin and Romanian, pursuing a career path which eventually earned him a position at Bucharest University.[1][4][5][17] He was given employment as a high school teacher, and obtained an unpaid university position as assistant to Hasdeu, head of the Department of Letters.[3][4][5][18] Nastasă, who notes Șăineanu's enthusiasm for his work, writes: "His opening lecture for the Comparative Philology course—like all of his work—is a proof of erudition more or less unparalleled within the areas of Romania."[19]
Despite his qualifications, Șăineanu was unable to advance professionally because of his non-citizen status.[4][20] The young researcher was also appointed substitute teacher of Latin inBucharestGheorghe Lazăr High School by an administrative decision of the Education Ministry, taken despite the antisemitic protestations of UndersecretaryȘtefan Michăilescu.[4][21] His assignment to the post followed the intercession of his friend and former teacher, the writer and archeologistAlexandru Odobescu,[5][22] and inaugurated a short period during which Șăineanu focused on writing textbooks.[23]
Shortly afterward,Conservative MinisterTitu Maiorescu, leader of the influential literary clubJunimea and himself one of Lazăr Șăineanu's former professors,[5] appointed him to a position at the university, within the History and Literature Department ofV. A. Urechia.[4][24] The latter, an outspoken antisemite and prominent member of the opposition National Liberal group, reacted strongly against the measure, launching that claim that, unlike anethnic Romanian, a Jew "could never awaken in the mind and heart of the young generation the image of our past laden with lessons for the future".[4] According to Șăineanu's own recollection, he had not himself asked for the university appointment, and suspected that it was offered to him in the first place so that the Gheorghe Lazăr position would be assigned to "a favorite of the day, the former tutor ofPrince Ferdinand."[25] He nevertheless noted that Urechia had aconflict of interest when opposing his appointment, given that he had designed the department around his own chairmanship, and that, with the aid ofUniversity of Iași academicAlexandru D. Xenopol, he had set in motion a set of "miserable intrigues" to maintain his hold on the faculty.[26]
Șăineanu also commented on the alleged oscillations of Tocilescu, who, after agreeing to lead the History section upon its recommended division, and supporting his Jewish colleague for chairmanship of the Letters section, threw his support behind Urechia.[27] Nastasă, who mentions the scheming on the part of Urechia and Tocilescu, cites Moses Gaster's letter to Șăineanu, which defined Tocilescu as a double-crosser, "a filthy twicer and a bloodsucker".[28] The complications eventually led Șăineanu to present his resignation, and Maiorescu to accept it.[4][27] He recalled: "Every reasonable man would doubtlessly assume that [...] the resentment Mr. Urechia held against this unfortunate nomination would have been appeased. To assume thus would mean not to know the person or the Romanian social environment well enough, for barely two months had passed before grandiosepatriotism again displayed the effects of its hatred."[27]
The young linguist also contributed toConvorbiri Literare, a magazine edited byJunimea. It was there that, in 1887, he published his study on theKhazars' possible presence in Romanian folklore:Jidovii sau Tătarii sau Uriașii ("The Jews or theTatars or theUriași").[29][30] Produced on the basis of folkloric surveys inMuntenian andOltenian localities such asDragoslavele,Schitu Golești andRadomir, the study was later used against him by his political adversaries, who resented the implications it seemed to carry for the traditional relations between Jews and Romanians.[29]
By that moment in his career, Șăineanu was also publishing several books on comparative linguistics. Initially, he focused on assessing the impact ofTurkish andOttoman Turkish on the mainlyRomanceAromanian language, producing the 1885 studyElemente turcești în limba aromână ("Turkish Elements in the Aromanian Language").[31] In 1889, he published his innovative work on the links betweenGerman and Yiddish,Studiu dialectologic asupra graiului evreo-german ("ADialectologic Study on Judeo-German Speech").[32] His recognized field of expertise, Nastasă notes, was by then the widest in Romania, comprising not just Yiddish and Romance linguistics, but also the studyProto-Indo-European,Proto-Slavic and various other languages and dialects.[33]
Also in 1889, Șăineanu applied fornaturalization, which, according to the1866 Constitution, a Jew could only receive by special act of theRomanian Parliament and in exchange for exceptional merits.[3][4][34] The effort, which consumed some 12 years of his life, pitted him against the antisemitic current in politics and the scientific community: among the most vocal adversaries of his naturalization were two prominent National Liberals, Urechia and Sturdza, both of whom had a following amongnationalist sections of the electorate.[3][4][34] As head of the parliamentary commission on legal integration, Sturdza signed a recommendation to reject the proposed law, which had been previously approved byJustice MinisterGeorge D. Vernescu, on grounds that Șăineanu lacked qualifications.[35] Their campaign, which depicted Șăineanu as an adversary of Romania, culminated whenSenate voted 79 to 2 against the naturalization request.[4][36]
The resistance to his application was a surprise for Șăineanu, who wrote: "I was not aware that this path [...] is the more thorny as the [person's] merits are more real."[3][37] He also accused the political establishment of endemiccorruption, writing: "any banker who demanded naturalization received it without the least of difficulties".[38] During the following interval, Șăineanu's cause reportedly won the support ofKingCarol I, ConservativePremierLascăr Catargiu[4][39] and moderate National Liberal politicoMihail Kogălniceanu.[40] Reviewing the situation, Șăineanu cited an unusual incident in neighboringAustria-Hungary, where local Romanians were demanding increasedgroup rights as part of theMemorandum movement. Their arguments about cultural repression were met with the reply ofHungarian intellectuals, who cited the Șăineanu issue as proof that Austria-Hungary had more to offer than Romania: "He had all of Romania on his case, but he had rendered [the country] as many services as most Romanian demigods."[40] In 1893, the naturalization request came before thelower chamber, resulting in a vote of 76 in favor to 20 against.[4] According to the scholar's recollections, his only adversary in this forum was his formerConvorbiri Literare colleague, writerIacob Negruzzi, who reportedly stated the unsupported claim that Șăineanu had campaigned against Romania "in English" (Șăineanu believed that this was "doubtlessly" stated "because [English] was completely unfamiliar to the majority of Chamber members").[41]
Despite his involvement in a political scandal, Lazăr Șăineanu did not interrupt his work in linguistics. His 1891 book,Raporturile între gramatică și logică ("The Relations betweenGrammar andLogic"), written on the basis of his university lectures,[19] comprised his thoughts on theorigin of language and was among volumes pioneering the study of logical aspects withinnatural language.[42] Datcu notes this contribution, alongside the 1892Istoria filologiei române ("History of Romanian Philology"), for the "up to date information" provided.[3] The latter was explained by the author as "destined to encourage the new generation to work, and come to its aid through useful advice."[43] The two volumes were accompanied by a printed expansion of his earliest thesis on Heliade Rădulescu.[4]
In 1895, Șăineanu completed work on one of his major contributions to folkloristics in general and the study ofRomania folklore in particular:Basmele române în comparațiune cu legendele antice clasice și în legătură cu basmele popoarelor învecinate și ale tuturor popoarelor romanice ("Romanian Fairy Tales as Compared to theLegends of Classical Antiquity and Those of AllRomance Peoples").[3][4] An exhaustivemonograph, it comprised some 1,000 pages of main text and 100 pages ofindex.[4] The volume was presented anonymously to the Romanian Academy (in accordance with its regulations), and received its Heliade Rădulescu Award. Consternation ensued once the author revealed his name, prompting Sturdza and Negruzzi to ask, unsuccessfully, for the Academy's decision to be overturned.[4][44] On the occasion, Urechia (himself an Academy member) publicly stated that his adversary had purchased the award, but, Șăineanu noted, never presented proof for this assertion.[45]
That same year, the matter of his citizenship was returned to the Senate. By then, Șăineanu's file had been further enriched with the award certificate, a guarantee of good conduct fromBucharest City Hall, and several favorable reports from Hasdeu (an exception to the latter's own antisemitic discourse).[4] Hasdeu also arranged him interviews withRomanian OrthodoxMetropolitanGhenadie (who was also president of the commission on naturalization), whileAlexandru Odobescu brought the case to the attention ofGheorghe Grigore Cantacuzino, the ConservativePresident of the Senate.[46] There followed a major Senate debate, during which Urechia stood out for his repeated criticism of his former competitor, likening him to aTrojan Horse and demanding from fellow parliamentarians not to let "a foreigner" slide into "the Romanian citadel" (statements to which many responded with applause).[4] Listing his various claims alongside his and Hasdeu's replies, the Jewish scholar himself recounted that Urechia eventually came to state, at the Senate tribune, that "Mr. Șăineanu did not publish anything against the country, but neither did he write in favor of the national question".[47]
The early vote gave 33 to 26 against Șăineanu's naturalization, short of thesupermajority required, but a second take resulted in 61 against to 12 in favor.[4][48] The antisemitic segment of the board celebrated this victory with loud cheers, as witnessed by Odobescu, who recorded feeling himself confronted with the image of "cannibals who rejoiced like beasts over having slashed and devoured a civilized man".[4][49] Another voice from academia to speak unfavorably of the opposition met by Șăineanu wasAlexandru Philippide, who wrote: "I am notphilosemitic, but if there ever was a kike deserving of naturalization, that would be Șăineanu."[28] Shortly after this incident, the new National Liberal MinisterSpiru Haret reshuffled the teaching posts, and Șăineanu, who was holding a new teacher's position at Bucharest'sȘcoala Normală Superioară, found himself unemployed, and opted to seek employment outside Romania, inParis andBerlin.[4][50]
Without ceasing to publish works for theJunimea periodicalConvorbiri Literare, Șăineanu continued to frequent its adversary Hasdeu, and contributed some of his other essays to Hasdeu's magazineRevista Nouă.[51]Basmele române was followed in 1896 byStudii folclorice ("Studies in Folklore"), a collection of short writings oncomparative mythology.[3][4] That same year, he completed his fundamental work in lexicography,Dicționarul universal al limbii române, which codified theRomanian lexis fromarchaisms anddialectical varieties toneologisms and modernjargon,[3] comprising around 30,000 entries and 80,000 definitions.[4] The first extensive project of its kind in the history of the local philological school,[4] it was to prove his most popular contribution from its first edition, circumstances themselves described by writerIon Luca Caragiale as a phenomenon inRomanian culture. Caragiale, who deemed Lazăr Șăineanu "a genuine talent in popularization", opined on the book's originality: "[Șăineanu] sought to embrace the entire manifestations in the life of a modern people [...]. Therefore, this universal dictionary provides a reduced, but precise image of our present-day culture, as it is reflected in the language."[3] In contrast to this positive appraisal, nationalists such as Urechia's sonAlceu publicly mocked the book and claimed that it lacked merit.[4]
In parallel, the volume consecrated Șăineanu's collaboration with theCraiova-based printing house of Jewish entrepreneurIosif Samitca (Institutul Samitca), where the scholar also publishedMitologia clasică ("Classical Mythology"), the 1895Romanian literature anthologyAutori români moderni. Bucăți alese în versuri și proză din principalii scriitori ai sec. al XIX-lea ("Modern Romanian Authors. Verse and Prose Samples Collected from the Main Writers of the 19th Century"), and an 1897 biographical essay onEnglish authorWilliam Shakespeare.[5] The business connection turned into family relations, after Șăineanu married the daughter ofRalian Samitca, Iosif's son, associate and eventual successor.[5] They had a daughter, Elisabeth.[52]
Șăineanu followed up with a comprehensive study regardingLevantine presences in the vocabulary and society alike, published byEditura Socec in 1900 (asInfluența orientală asupra limbii și culturii române, "The Oriental Influence on Romanian Language and Culture") and being made into aFrench-language edition in 1901.[31][53] It received attention from theAcadémie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, and consequently a nomination for the Institut de France'sVolney Prize.[53] However, in what has been seen as proof of the author's isolation in Romania, it was ignored by the Romanian Academy, which presented its prize for that year to a volume on the history of horses.[10] The book was also a cause for conflict between Șăineanu andNicolae Iorga, an established historian and nationalist politician. The heated debate, carried out inConstantin Rădulescu-Motru's periodicalNoua Revistă Română, was sparked by Iorga's review, which claimed to provide some necessary amends.[10] Șăineanu found the objections outlined by Iorga frivolous, and the overall text, in which his opponent had cited himself some 15 times, egocentric.[10]
This reaction was met with a virulent reply by Iorga, whose renewed accusations borrowed from antisemitic discourse: "[Șăineanu wrote] about many things that he does not comprehend. He was crafting with his clumsy hands manuals, grammars, anthologies, dictionaries for speculative profit. I however had an explanation for such defects. We all know that Mr. Șăineanu is not a Romanian, and we know that which he is. His people has many traits that are very elevated and noble, but also many defects that are low and ungainly. These, I had been telling myself, are in his blood; he could never get rid of them. I wish to talk about the passion for high praise and multiple earnings, without much investment".[10] In 1907, Iorga and hisNeamul Românesc journal also retorted against Caragiale's praise for Șăineanu, calling Caragiale one who "deals with the Jews", and prompting Caragiale to satirize Iorga's own scholarly ambitions.[54]
In order to facilitate the naturalization procedures, Lazăr Șăineanu eventually renouncedJudaism and accepted baptism in the Romanian Orthodox Church.[3][4][55] Hisgodfather wasTake Ionescu, at the time a rising figure within the Conservative Party ranks.[4] Ionescu himself served as Minister of Education, appreciating the scholar's insight and enjoying his company before taking his distance from him for reasons unknown.[56] Șăineanu's case was again presented for Senate approval in December 1899, this time with a favorable review from the special parliamentary commission, and the motion for his naturalization was carried with 37 to 2 votes[4] (or, according to Șăineanu, a 39-vote unanimity).[57] Although the result was positive, the scientist was informed that a new procedure had just been passed with support from across the floor, specifying that naturalization could only be enforced by vote in a common session of the two chambers.[4][58] The dossier was therefore submitted to another vote, on the last session of 1899, which again enlisted attacks from the antisemitic groups, before being canceled due to lack ofquorum.[10][59]
Reflecting on the early result, which had left him "submerged into complete happiness", and on the new vote, which he believed was a mere technicality introduced on purpose by Justice MinisterConstantin Dissescu, he recalled: "for 24 hours I waspolitically [Șăineanu's italics] within the Romanian nationhood!"[60] He recalled having been received by King Carol, who reportedly agreed with his belief that the action was abusive.[61] By then, Șăineanu also lost the support of Hasdeu, who, like Take Ionescu, gave his approval to a restructuring of the university, which stripped the Jewish scholar of his honorary position.[10][62] He sought instead backing fromPetre P. Carp, the Conservative doyen, who reportedly answered his request with the ambiguous Latin adageGutta cavat lapidem ("The water drop will drill through stone").[10][63] On the other side of the divide, the attacks on Șăineanu had come to be led by the antisemitic paperApărarea Națională, whose articles, the scholar argued, "reached the summit of stupidity and ridiculousness".[64]
On December 14, 1900, the issue of Lazăr Șăineanu's naturalization was also revisited by the lower chamber, and the proposal defeated with 44 votes to 31 (from an insufficient quorum of 75), followed by a definitive vote on December 15, at which 48 out of 95 deputies voted against.[10] This outcome was celebrated byApărarea Națională, which published editorial comments such as "All Romanian hearts have jumped up with immense glee" and "Our ancestors have shuddered with joy in their graves".[10][65] Among those who expressed condemnation of the decision wereLa Roumanie journal and aristocratAlexandru Bibescu.[66] In 1901, frustrated by the political reaction and feeling uncomfortable in Romania, the scholar and his family resettled in Paris, where he primarily used aFrancization of his Romanian name, signing asLazare Sainéan.[10][67]
His main interest for the following period were the theories ofevolutionary linguistics, with focus on theNeogrammarian approach,ethnolinguistics andpsycholinguistics.[67] He also added to his interests the groundbreaking investigation of Frenchargot,[10][67] and published a shortmemoir (Une carrière philologique en Roumanie, "A Philologist's Career in Romania"). Șăineanu's studies also focused on a comparative research of building rituals as found in Balkan literature, and notably the RomanianMeșterul Manole myth (the book saw print in French, as the 1902Les rites de la construction d'après la poésie populaire de l'Europe Orientale).[68] By then, he was in correspondence with fellow linguistAlfred Landau, with whom he discussed the history of Yiddish.[69]
Șăineanu's parallel investigations into thehistory of French included his 1905-1907La Création métaphorique en français et en roman: images tirées du monde des animaux domestiques ("The Metaphoric Creation in French and Romance Languages: Images from the World of Domestic Animals"), which was structured into several tomes, respectively dedicated to the principal household companions. He also began work on major syntheses on French vocabulary,L'Argot ancien ("Ancient Argot") and its companionLes Sources de l'argot ancien ("The Sources of Ancient Argot", 1907). The former earned him theVolney Prize for 1908. Writing in 1999, historian Joan Leopold argued that this was a significant achievement, since the Volney Commission "seemed to fear direct competition by foreigners"—other exceptions to this rule beingLiu Bannong,Wilhelm Schmidt andMarie-Louise Sjoestedt.[70] According to Leopold, Șăineanu was among the Volney prizewinners, "particularly foreigners", who "were never elected to an affiliation with theFrench Académies."[71] However, she also notes that "there were no titles honored [during 1900-1909] which are now remembered as significant in the history of linguistics".[72] She places the fact that Șăineanu "did not achieve major university positions in France" in connection with a tendency of awarding the prize to scholars who mainly did field work (Schmidt,Adolphe de Calassanti-Motylinski,George Abraham Grierson,Leo Reinisch and others).[72] Literary criticLaszlo Alexandru passed a similar judgment: "Lazăr Șăineanu's disappearance from the Romanian cultural space was received with an almost unanimous silence; but the emergence of Lazare Sainéan in Parisian scientific research would not itself result, for the rest of his days, in the much coveted and entirely deserved university chair."[10]
Between 1912 and 1922, Șăineanu worked with theSociété des Études rabelaisiennes on publishing the annotated edition of Rabelais' complete works.[5] His career was not interrupted byWorld War I, and, in 1915, he published a report on the special language of French soldiers entrenched on theWestern Front (L'Argot des tranchés, "Trench Argot").[10] His 1920 volume on the evolution of argot inParisian French (Le Langage parisien au XIXe siècle, "Parisian Language in the 19th Century"), was again nominated for a Volney Prize.[73]
In 1922, Șăineanu publishedManuel de phonétique latin ("Manual ofLatin Phonetics"), the last of his contributions to be shortlisted for a Volney.[74] By then, he had also become interested in researching the work ofFrench Renaissance authorFrançois Rabelais, primarily focusing on his use ofMiddle French—an account published between 1920 and 1923 asLa Langue de Rabelais ("Rabelais' Language").[10][75] Between 1925 and 1930, he published the volumes of a large-scale project,Les Sources indigènes de l'étymologie française ("The Indigenous Sources of French Etymology"), which was reputedly the result of three decades in specialized research.[5] In 1930, Șăineanu followed up with another book on Rabelais, mainly dedicated to his critical reception and cultural legacy (L'Influence et la réputation de Rabelais, "Rabelais' Influence and Reputation").[76] He died four years later at a hospital in Paris, after complications from surgery.[5]
The diverse cultural background on which Lazăr Șăineanu relied and his early familiarity with several traditions are occasionally credited as sources for his scholarly achievements. Joan Leopold noted that the Romanian-born scholar was among the fourteen or fifteen Jews of various nationalities whose work was taken into consideration by the Volney Committee during the 19th century, pointing to the legacy of "Talmudic and [Jewish] philological traditions" within modern science.[77] His Jewish identity, literary historianGeorge Călinescu noted in 1933, went in tandem with an exceptional familiarity with Romanian language and culture; like other of his fellow Jewish Romanian intellectuals (among whom Călinescu cited philologists Gaster andBarbu Lăzăreanu,Marxist theoristConstantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea and dramatistRonetti Roman), Șăineanu possessed "an amazingly richRomanian lexis".[3]
During his time in Romania, the scientist was involved in cultural debates surrounding the Romanianethos. As a disciple ofMoses Gaster and contributor toAnuar pentru Israeliți, Șăineanu implicitly stood for aHaskalah ideology, supporting Jewish integration into the cultural mainstream, and favored the scientific approach toJewish history akin to theWissenschaft des Judentums methods.[9] Laszlo Alexandru refers to his "fundamental program" as being "the assimilationist thesis", and explains that, for this reason, the scholar changedSchein toȘăineanu.[4] The same commentator notes that Șăineanu disregardedBogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu's publicized antisemitism when he became a "fervent disciple" of Hasdeu in scholarly matters.[4] In reference to his ownpatriotic sentiment, Șăineanu once defined the country as "twice sacred to my eyes—the land where I was born and where my parents sleep their eternal slumber."[3][10] After his departure to France, he further stated that he bore "not even the shadow of a grudge" on the Romanian people as a whole.[3] According to literary historianEugen Lovinescu, the scholar's subsequent correspondence stands as "proof of sincere adherence, prolonged over decades and perils, to his country of origin".[3] However, according to one account, when Șăineanu happened to meetNicolae Iorga in Paris some decades after their polemic, he made a point of addressing him in French, which was interpreted as a statement of disgust with the Romanian cultural environment.[10]
Șăineanu also made himself known for the points of view which he expressed in relation to the debates over theLatin alphabet and orthography, within the context oflinguistic evolution. Overall, Șăineanu argued that earlyRomanian history as taught in his lifetime was better covered by philologists, since, before the time ofMichael the Brave, it had "more of anethnographic and philological character".[25] He reacted against the politicization of research and accusations that his own works did not support popular views of "the national question".[78] At a time when theCyrillic version had been discarded but the new spelling was still largely unregulated, he joined the outspoken critics of attempts to modify the shape of words so as to suggest their Latin origins.[79] The "Latinist" approach, experimented in the lexicographic work ofI. C. Massim andAugust Treboniu Laurian and originating with theTransylvanian School, was favored for a while by theRomanian Academy, but had become widely ridiculed by the 1880s.[79] According to the scholar's own words, "Latinomaniac tendencies" were nevertheless present with National Liberals such as Sturdza, and formed a background theme in the party's conflict with Moses Gaster.[80] While approaching theJunimea society's tenets on this matter, Șăineanu also sharedBogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu's criticism ofJunimistGermanophilia. In 1897, the two scholars publishedEine Trilogie (German for "A Trilogy"), criticizing a perceived Conservative andJunimist monopoly on theRomanian literary scene in general, and, in particular, the officially condoned historical overview byWilhelm Rudow,Gheorghe Bogdan-Duică andIacob Negruzzi, which seemed to omit mention of any politically inconvenient literary contribution.[51]
Much of Lazăr Șăineanu earliest contributions connected his linguistic research with his interest inRomanian folklore. Aiming to be "a genuine corpus of Romanian oral literature",Basmele române aimed at introducing the major themes in localspoken tradition, listing and transcribing some 500 stories.[3] Lazăr Șăineanu took additional care in preserving the integrity of theoral level of Romanian literature in printed versions, and urged other folklorists interviewing storytellers to keep notes on the latter's special talents.[81] Such preoccupations in preserving context were also found in his lexicographic work; according to Caragiale,Dicționarul universal was groundbreaking because its author took care "to support with authentic testimonies the words and the nuances of meanings."[3]
A special section of Șăineanu's research in the same area was dedicated tocomparative mythology. His contributions have led folkloristLinda Dégh to deem him "one of the pioneers in classifying folktales according to their types".[81] This method was employed inBasmele române, whose content was structured into both types and "cycles".[3] InBasmele române, arguing in favor of applying the principles introduced by Hasdeu, Șăineanu analyzed Romanian folktales in their native and national content.[82] Nevertheless, he followed the conclusions of other folklorists on the universality of folklore, suggesting that the world's entire folkloric literature was structured into some tens of groups.[83] WithStudii folclorice, the researcher tested ananthropological investigation into the characteristics and supposed origins of each myth, in particularMeșterul Manole,Baba Dochia and theiele creatures.[3] InLes rites de la construction, Șăineanu focused on a set ofballads with a similar construction- andimmurement-related subject, present throughoutEast Central orEastern Europe, likening the RomanianMeșterul Manole legend to its counterparts inSerbian (Zidanje Skadra),Hungarian (Kőműves Kelemen) and other regional folkloric traditions.[68] According to critics John Neubauer andMarcel Cornis-Pope, he was "the first author to attempt a synthetic treatment of the immurement motif in Eastern Europe".[68] The two also note that Șăineanu, who believed that the motif reached its potential significance only in Eastern Europe, stayed clear of the controversy surrounding the geographic and ethnic sources of the ballad (while specifying his belief that the Hungarian version followed a Romanian source), and discussedZidanje Skadra andMeșterul Manole as the most crafted variants of the myth.[68]
One portion of Șăineanu's studies in Romanian folklore bordered on his investigation of Jewish history. The scholar noticed recurring characteristic amongantagonists in Romanian fairy tales, particularly theuriași—occasionally known asjidovi, "Jews", ortătari, "Tatars".[4][29] He attributed such traits to a possible conflictual encounter, taking place at some point in theearly medieval period, between Romanians (orVlachs) and theKhazars, aTurkic tribe that had adopted Judaism.[4][29] His interpretation, as paraphrased by the scholar himself, concluded: "Was there in the past a people about which one could claim with certainty that it was both Tatar and Jewish at the same time? My answer to this question is that such a people existed, and it is known in history under the name of Khazars [...]. After spreading its domination over Eastern Europe, these Jewish-Tatars suddenly disappeared from the stage of history. What became of them? A part of these Khazars will have looked early on for a shelter inTransylvania, from where they crossed to theDanubian countries, especially inMuntenia, particularly inMuscel andRomanați districts where the traditional memories regarding them seem to be concentrated. [...] The settlements and their dwellings left important traces that took on colossal proportions in people's imagination. People of a supernatural size seemed to have lived [...] in an ancient time, which the old can hardly remember, and our peasants call those giant people Jews or Tatars."[29][84] The scholar referred to various constants in folkloric accounts: peasants' testimonies which attributed large stone ruins to the Jews (whom they occasionally referred to as giants or supernaturally powerful people) and the "red"antagonists in fairy tales such asIon Creangă'sHarap Alb (the "Red Emperor", the "Red Man" and people with red-colored facial markings, all placed by Șăineanu in connection to the "Red Jews" myth).[29] Șăineanu's political adversaries, includingV. A. Urechia, saw in this theory evidence of a Jewish historiographical attempt at overriding the Romanian presence in the area[4][29][85]—an interpretation since defined as "in bad faith" and "slanderous" by Laszlo Alexandru.[4]
The scholar earned much recognition for his parallel work in Yiddish linguistics. According toAmerican researcher Jerold C. Frakes, he is one of the "major scholars of the late nineteenth century" to have studied the Yiddish language, his contribution ranking him alongsideMaks Erik,Solomon Birnbaum,Chone Shmeruk,Max andUriel Weinreich.[86] According to Hebraist Robert D. King, such contributions rank Șăineanu,Alfred Landau andMatisyohu Mieses "among the first scholars to take Yiddish seriously, toforce others [King's italics] to take it seriously, to move conceptually beyond the stupid position that Yiddish was 'bad German' or 'jargon', a second-rate excuse of a language."[87] His inquiry into medieval structures connecting Yiddish and German is seen by GermanistsDagmar C. G. Lorenz and Neil G. Jacobs as a substantial discovery, Șăineanu being the first to indicate "that the German component of Yiddish traces back toMiddle High German sources" (meaning that "Yiddish was no longer to be evaluated in terms ofNew High German").[32] The scholar was also reportedly the discoverer of a direct link between Yiddish andAramaic; this allowed the conclusion that the Jewish German dialect originated among Aramaic-speaking and pre-Ashkenazi Jews, who originally settled further east than the Askhenazi home in theRhineland.[88]
In his studies ofTurkish andTurkic borrowings into the Romanian lexis, Lazăr Șăineanu looked back on historical events leading back to theAge of Migrations, such as in highlighting the possiblePecheneg origin of relatively common Romanian words such asbuzdugan ("mace"),duium ("multitude"),dușman ("enemy"),caia ("horseshoe nail"),colibă ("hut") andfotă ("skirt").[89] However, one of his primary focuses was onOttoman Turkish as a mediator between Romanian and other languages: the Romanian wordgiuvaier ("jewel"), borrowed from the Turkishcevahir, but originating with aPersian source;trampă ("barter"), taken from the Turkishtrampa, but sourced to theItaliantramutare ("to transform");talaz ("high wave"), identical to the Turkish intermediary, and through it borrowed from theGreek Θάλασσα (thalassa, "sea").[90] Additionally, the scholar documented the distant impression ofLevantine territories, as first introduced throughOttoman culture—as illustrated by the original references toEgypt asMisir, from theArabic مصر (Miṣr), as opposed to the more modernEgipt.[91] He also discussed the professionalsuffixes-giu and-angiu, both of Turkish origin and present in words borrowed during theearly modern andPhanariote eras.[2][92] Main examples includebarcagiu ("boater" or "ferryman"),bragagiu ("boza maker"),geamgiu ("window fitter"),toptangiu ("wholesale vendor") etc., but the suffix is also applied ironically in various other contexts—for example,mahalagiu ("inhabitant of themahala", "suburbanite" or "uncouth person") andduelgiu ("dueler").[92] Șăineanu's texts followed the evolutions of similar words ending in-liu (such ashazliu, "funny", fromhaz, "laughter"), of popularfigures of speech directly translated from their Turkish original (a bea tutun, "to drink tobacco", or the questionîn ce ape te scalzi?, "what waters do you bathe in?", figurative for "how are you feeling?"), and ofstrong obscenities reflecting Oriental sources.[2] In general, Șăineanu concluded, such appropriation from an area mediated byIslam andIslamic culture was not present in areas directed related toChristian practice and intellectual life.[93]
Especially in hisInfluența orientală asupra limbii și culturii române, Șăineanu evidenced the spread of Turkish borrowings throughout the Balkans, and concluded that they had a more significant presence in Aromanian than in Romanian.[94] His contemporary, philologistVasile Bogrea, referred to the volume as a "Bible of Oriental elements in Romanian",[3] while the author himself deemed it a "supreme testimony of my love for the Romanian language and people".[10][95] According to writer and criticAlexandru Mușina, Șăineanu was foremost among the linguists who challenged a linear take on theorigin of the Romanians, evidencing, likeAlexandru Philippide andAlexandru Cihac, the "heterogeneous,plurilingual andmulticultural character of ourRomanity", with the underlying "processes ofacculturation".[2] In particular, Mușina notes, it was Șăineanu's study of Turkish words and expressions settled in the everyday language that uncovered "aforma mentis, common Oriental, Turco-Romanian mentality."[2]
WithLa Création métaphorique, the researcher inventoried the representations of animals in the late medieval imaginary: lions and cocks as representations of courage,hunting dogs as icons of arrogance, pigs as symbols of gluttony etc.[96] The books notably showed the traditional semantic parallelisms between cats, monkeys and apes, as codified in severalRomance languages, and investigated the animals' respective roles within populardemonology and metaphors of drunkenness.[97] WithLes Sources indigènes de l'étymologie française, Șăineanu offered clues on the obscure origin of various French words. Șăineanu thus sourced the French and Englishharlequin beyond theItalian-languagearlechino inCommedia dell'arte, and back to a medieval legend inMiddle French.[98]
A number of Șăineanu's texts focused on the language patterns covered by "argot" and the original meaning of "jargon", in relation to French andParisian social history, discussing the language of thegueux (marginalized and destitute migrants), the obscene nature of some medieval performances, the linguistic codes used by brigands during theHundred Years' War, and the impact of argot in the work of poetFrançois Villon or otherFrench Renaissance writers.[99]Le Langage parisien au XIXe siècle discussed in part the emergence of what Șăineanu himself defined asle bas langage parisien ("the lowly Parisian language"), a mix of argots emerging from 19th centuryurbanization.[100] His studies in the area were part of a phenomenon in French linguistics: at roughly the same time as Șăineanu, argot studies were becoming the main subject of works by researchers such asArnold van Gennep andRaoul De La Grasserie.[101] A disagreement occurred between Șăineanu and Gennep over the origins and age of argot: Gennep criticized his colleague's claim that "no European argot has sources beyond the 15th century", arguing that such statements were not verifiable, and that they presumed "some kind of spontaneous generation".[102] Also according to Gennep, Șăineanu was among thoseEurocentric scholars who offered a "teratological" view of argot as an "aberrant creation".[102]
As part of his efforts to advance the study of Middle French, Șăineanu dedicated himself to an applied study ofFrançois Rabelais and his role inFrench literature. Called "remarkable and abundantly documented" by RussiansemioticianMikhail Bakhtin,[75]La Langue de Rabelais outlines the use, context and origin of some 3,770 individual words in Rabelaisian vocabulary.[103] It was especially noted for its details on various contributions to Rabelais' means of expression, including staples ofFrench folklore such as the so-calledCris de Paris (chants traditionally produced by Parisian street vendors).[75] Some of his other contributions to the study of Rabelais' work, as described by Bakhtin, include the inventory of culinary metaphors found throughoutGargantua and Pantagruel, and evidence that Rabelais had an unmitigated familiarity with the maritime trade.[104]La Langue de Rabelais also offered clues into 16th-century views ofhomosexuality, discussing the origin of archaisms such asbardachiser ("to sodomize") or the link between Rabelais' maritime terminology and medieval reactions tohomoeroticism.[105]
In his work on the subject, Șăineanu also stood out as one of those rejecting the notion that Rabelais' writings have a specialanticlerical meaning, arguing instead that his mockery of clerical society was merely a rendition of common and folkloric attitudes—a conclusion quoted in agreement byAnnales School historianLucien Febvre in his ownThe Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century.[106] Also cited by Febvre are Șăineanu's views onIslamic and "Saracen" echos inGargantua and Pantagruel (such as the depiction ofFierabras), as well as on Rabelais' references to miraculous cures as being borrowed from earlierromance fiction.[107] In a parallel series of articles, the Romanian scholar also discussed the link betweenAncient Roman thinkerPliny the Elder and the Renaissance writer, commenting on the similarity between Rabelais' description of medical practices and statements found inNatural History.[108]
Despite the antisemitic campaigns and the voluntary expatriation, Șăineanu's reputation with the Romanian public was largely unharmed, and his works went through new Romanian-language editions:Dicționarul universal alone was reissued a total of nine times before 2009,[3] and was allegedly a primary target forplagiarism from the moment of its publication.[4] In tandem, Șăineanu's request that his peers publish details on the individual storytellers providing the folkloric accounts was respected by some, including Alexandru Vasiliu, collector ofPovești și legende ("Stories and Legends", 1928).[109] Two years after Șăineanu's death, his brotherConstantin collected and edited his correspondence, publishing it in Bucharest.[67]
Much interest in Șăineanu's work was sparked during theinterwar period, shortly before and after the scholar's death, when new generations of critics came to reclaim his work as an important contribution to the field of science. Outside of Romania and France, Șăineanu's contribution of Rabelais left an observable trace inFinnegans Wake, a 1939modernist novel byIrish novelistJames Joyce: while Joyce's text holds transparent allusions to Rabelais' writings, the writer himself claimed to have never read the originals, and to have instead relied solely on a scientific study (in turn identified by research Claude Jacquet asLa Langue de Rabelais).[110]
Interwar Romanian intellectuals, primarily George Călinescu and Eugen Lovinescu, played a part in reevaluating and bringing to attention Șăineanu's contribution within its Romanian and international context. Șăineanu's correspondence was itself a topic of controversy between the two rival critics: after Lovinescu showed himself impressed by a letter in which Șăineanu statedE. Lovinescu m'impose ("E. Lovinescu impresses me"), Călinescu noted that his competitor had a tendency to quote "all things flattering him, no matter how cheap."[49] During the same decade, the maverick writerPanait Istrati, himself a voluntary exile to France, explained thatDicționarul universal was "the holy book" of his Romanian adolescence.[3] However, Lucian Nastasă notes, the antisemitic background beyond Șăineanu's rejection (as well as the similar affair involvingSolomon Schechter) continued to make itself felt throughout those years, with other Jewish scholars (Leon Feraru orAlexandru Graur) being actively prevented from seeking employment in their field.[111] Braving the violently antisemitic andauthoritarian regime ofConducătorIon Antonescu, in place during most ofWorld War II, Călinescu commented favorably on the contributions of Jewish figures to Romanian cultural life in his main synthesis, the 1941History of Romanian Literature.[112] It included a reference to Jewish linguists Șăineanu, Gaster,Ion Aurel Candrea, as scholars whose merits would be "regrettable to deny".[3][113]
In contrast, the Romanianfar right andfascist groups continued to regard Șăineanu's marginalization as justified. The 1930s witnessed a controversy which, according to Laszlo Alexandru, recalled the confrontation between Hasdeu and Lazăr Șăineanu: Hasdeu's place was held by academicNae Ionescu, who moved toward fascism and antisemitism, while Șăineanu's position was assumed by Ionescu's Jewish disciple, writerMihail Sebastian.[4] Writing forAzi during the Sebastian scandal of 1934, journalist N. Roșu, an affiliate of the fascistIron Guard, claimed that "Romanian culture will go on living" irrespective of Jewish absences such as Șăineanu and Gaster, that one's creativity depended on one's "Romanianness", and that philology studies reflected one's "sensitivity".[114] In 1936, a Guardist named Vasile Gârcineanu calledDicționarul universal "a characteristically Jewish work, superficially and poorly crafted".[115] While cultivating an ambiguous relationship with fascism, which eventually brought him into the ranks of the Iron Guard, philosopherMircea Eliade, one of Ionescu's other known disciples, publicly deplored Șăineanu's social relegation and Gaster's expulsion.[116]
Thecommunist period witnessed a long hiatus in respect to the critical assessment of Șăineanu's work: in 1962, linguistDumitru Macrea referred to his predecessor as an "all but forgotten" figure, and none of Șăineanu's volumes were printed between the 1947 edition of his dictionary and the 1978 version ofBasmele române.[3] This reticence was however contrasted by the appreciation of various academics:Iorgu Iordan commented on his "extraordinary erudition", recommended his disciples to study his work, and referred to his repudiation by the Romanian state as "a real stain on our public life of the late [19th] century".[3] During that time, Iordan and his colleaguesPerpessicius[3][83] andAlexandru Rosetti published renewed commentary on Șăineanu's work, being later joined by philosopherConstantin Noica, folkloristOvidiu Bârlea and various other intellectuals.[3]
A new edition ofDicționarul universal saw print after the1989 Revolution and the end of communism. According to writer and researcher Rodica Marian, this reissue "without interventions" constitutes proof of a return to the "past parameters" of lexicography, at the end of a deterioration of standards.[117] It was followed by several other initiatives, which notably resulted in reprints ofStudii folclorice andÎncercare asupra semasiologiei române.[3] Writing in 2003,Alexandru Mușina referred to Șăineanu as a "great", "mistreated" and "unrecognized" linguist, definingInfluența orientală asupra limbii și culturii române as "his valuable work, as yet unchallenged and still relevant".[2] In 2008, the case surrounding Șăineanu's naturalization bid was the subject of a biographical study, written by historianGeorge Voicu and published by theElie Wiesel National Institute for Studying the Holocaust in Romania.[3][4] Șăineanu's works have also been the subject of reprints in France, and have continued to be recommended secondary sources by academic institutions in the United States more than a century after they were first published.[10] His posthumously published writings include a 1991 edition ofUne carrière philologique en Roumanie.[29]
