Romanian ethnic identity and language

Originally posted by Chilbudios Because I've noticed recently how narrowmindedness and Balkan nationalism reached the heights of denying such a reality, I decided to open a thread on it.     It was claimed that Romanians did not realize they speak a language called Romanian until late in the 19th century.   Francisco della Valle, 1532: "...si dimandano in lingua loro Romei... se alcuno dimanda se sanno parlare in la lingua valacca, dicono a questo modo: Sti Rominest ? ". Today, in modern Romanian "ştii rom�neşte?" stands for "do you know/speak Romanian?"   Pierre Lescalopier, 1576: "Tout ce pays [i.e. Wallachie] et Moldavie et la plupart de Transivanie a �t� peupl� des colonie romaines du temps de Traian l�empereur... Ceux du pays se disent vrays successeurs des Romains, nomment leur parler romanechte, c'est-�-dire romain". "rom�neşte" is in Romanian an adverb meaning "Romanian" (see the previous example for usage)

Finally......

It was claimed, i claimed it based on specific source, that the inhabitants of the Danubian Principalities did not realize that what they were speaking was of Latin origin, until the 17th century. The two  accounts you brought are very interesting indeed, but it does not function as a counter argument. It does not contradict Lucian Boia ( Romania:Borderland of Europe):For historians of the Renaissance , the Romanians were direct descendants of the Romans. Your accounts are those of outsiders. The question rised is whether Romanians themselves (Wallachians and Moldavians) knew that what they spoke was of Latin origin.

Originally posted by Chilbudios Roman and Vlahata is a legend written in Slavonic at the end of the 15th century, beginning of the 16th, probably by some scholar at the Moldavian court. It is part of a larger collection of texts, containing also the legend of Dragoş, a noble from Maramureş the founder of Moldavia and a chronology of Moldavian rulers from Dragoş to Bogdan III (1504 - 1517; the chronology ends with his reign but his death is not mentioned). The legend contains the story of two eponymous brothers, founders of two nations: the "Romans" from Italy and the "Romans" from Balkans. I will translate only its beginning, which is relevant enough for the topic of this thread. "Two brothers, Roman and Vlahata, fled from the city of Venice. Being of Christian faith, they fled from the persecution of heretics against the Christians and came to the city called Old Rome and founded a city after his name: Roman. And they lived their life, they and their descendants, until pope Formosus left Orthodoxy for the Latin law. And after abandoning the law of Christ, the Latins founded a new city and called it New Rome and called the descendants of Roman to join them. But the descendants of Roman didn't want that and started a great war and they didn't abandon their faith in Christ. And from that time it was war until the reign of Ladislaus, the king of Hungary."   The text contains many anachronisms and confusions, spanning for several centuries (Formosus' mission in Bulgaria ended in 867/868, and Ladislaus is most probably Ladislaus IV, 1272-1290, as the legend continues with a repelled invasion of the Tatars which could be identified with the one from 1285), but it reflects a mythical Roman origins of the Romanians. I will refer to it in a future post.

Again, very interesting. But i fail to see a specific "ethnic identity" here. All i see is reference to religion, sth natural for the Middle Ages:Being of Christian faith.......of heretics against the Christians.....left Orthodoxy for the Latin law.......the law of Christ......they didn't abandon their faith in Christ........  What i see is a religious conflict , aka Latins ( Catholics) vs the Romans (Orthodox).

Also, i would like to see the exact word for nation, as you used it in your prologue.

Because I've noticed recently how narrowmindedness and Balkan nationalism reached the heights of denying such a reality, I decided to open a thread on it.

Edited by Chilbudios - 30-Mar-2008 at 23:43