Seite 117 [117]
OCR
EUGEN STANCU The myth of origins, whether Romanians are actually Dacians, Romans or Daco-Romans, is an unanswered question that over time was given various solutions according to the ideological priorities of that respective present. For instance, in the 18'* and 19" centuries, the Roman origin of the Romanian people was a priority, especially for the Transylvanian intellectuals, but in the second half of the 19 century the idea of the Daco-Roman origin became prevalent. Then, the stress of the Dacian roots of the Romanian people reflected the debate between those sustaining the European occidental values and those supporting the autochthonous ones. The Romanian national communist regime during Ceausescu clearly favoured the Dacians. The “scientific” debate between those sustaining the Dacian or the Roman origins of the Romanian people was always supported with historical facts which were interpreted according to the ideological commandments at stake. The denial of the Romanian continuity in Transylvania, especially by Hungarian historiography, politically informed another central Romanian historical myth, that of continuity, which as compensation identifies the Romanian national space with that of Dacia from antiquity. Boia discusses the various interpretative historiography scenarios from the 19" century to that proposed by the Romanian Communist Party Program in 1974. Continuity is related with another crucial historical Romanian myth, that of unity. Romanian unity in its actual territory was anticipated by Dacian unity, and was allegedly achieved in the 17" century by Mihai Viteazul (Michael the Brave). In fact, as Boia demonstrates, the idea of the first Romanian national union realized by Mihai Viteazul was put forward by 19" century historians who sought to find arguments for their national political program that was finally achieved after the First World War. The continuous fight for independence is another important myth of Romanian historiography according to Boia. In all these mythological categories he explores various interpretations of the national history pointing out that historical reconstruction could not be detached from the “present time” in which the story is produced. In Istorie si mit in constiinta romdneascd, Boia also speaks about the instrumentalization (in fact this could also be considered a multiplication of the historical interpretations) of some historical figures after 1989. Marshal Antonescu, King Mihai, Avram Iancu or the leaders of the interwar Romanian political parties are such cases. The book Istorie si mit in constiinta romäneascä was better received than the volumes previously published by the Centre for the History of the Imaginary. It should bementioned, nevertheless, that Boia’s scholarly contribution from the 1990s related to the deconstruction of Romanian historical mythology * 116 +
