Stylistic traits and cultural context Zigu Ornea's contribution to
historiographic research and critical study was viewed with much interest by his colleagues, and often earned him high praise. Writer
Augustin Buzura called him "a great historian" and "an
encyclopédiste", Political scientist
Daniel Barbu speaks of Ornea's works as having supplemented the lack of
sociological research under communism, and thus one of the "outstanding authors" to have dedicated themselves to such overviews during that period (alongside
Vladimir Tismăneanu,
Pavel Câmpeanu,
Henri H. Stahl and
Vlad Georgescu). Ornea's scholarly work reflected his familiarity with Romanian culture and the
national vernacular, both of which earned the stated admiration of his peers. According to Ornea's own statement, Romanian language was "my motherland". Answering on this issue, Ornea himself stated: "when reediting one of my works of synthesis on the various currents of thought [after 1989], I only had to perform very few modifications, a sure sign that my research method and the thought (vision) guiding me was not at all played out." Reviewing this debate, literary critic
Pia Brînzeu argued that Ornea, with Manolescu,
Andrei Pleșu and
Adrian Marino (who "appreciated
Western values and favored the acceptance of some advanced social and cultural issues"), represented "the opposition" to communist or nationalist magazines such as
Flacăra,
Luceafărul and
Săptămîna ("which insisted on maintaining Romania's isolation from Europe").
American researcher
Katherine Verdery lists Ornea, Iorgulescu, Pleșu, Manolescu and Ștefănescu among those who "took a visible stand" against officially condoned protochronism (a group also including, in her opinion, Iorgulescu,
Ovid Crohmălniceanu,
Gheorghe Grigurcu,
Norman Manea,
Alexandru Paleologu and
Eugen Simion). The disadvantage for Ornea's camp, Brînzeu writes, was in that its members generally "could not voice their opinions aloud". Nevertheless, literary historian Florin Mihăilescu argues, protochronist ideologue
Edgar Papu abusively cited Ornea's texts, alongside those of many other figures outside the national communist circles, in such manner as to appear that they too supported protochronist theories.
Early writings One of Ornea's main preoccupations was the literary society
Junimea and its impact on the local literary scene. His two main books on the matter (
Junimismul and
Junimea și junimismul) were closely interconnected, being seen by political scientist and literary critic
Ioan Stanomir as two variants of the same study. In 2001, while assessing the conclusions drawn by
Sămănătorismul and being inquired by
Daniel Cristea-Enache about the book's implications, Ornea discussed the paradox of his stated admiration for Iorga, the
Sămănătorist theorist and historian. Acknowledging that Iorga's political thought signified "
xenophobic nationalism" and evidenced that its proponent was a "constant antisemite", Ornea assessed that, nevertheless, the same intellectual figure stood out for rejecting more violent forms of antisemitism, and was an outspoken adversary of the radically fascist
Iron Guard. Historian Nicolae Păun sees the work itself as also relevant for the cultural debates of Ornea's day, or "an analysis of the interwar period's message and its perception within a Romanian society fed by the passionate conflict between modernity and tradition." In his view, the work only partly compensates for a lack of sheer historiographic research dedicated to the events themselves because these were still being viewed as recent or directly meaningful for the relative present (and therefore subject to much debate). He cites
Tradiționalism și modernitate for tracing the links between, on one hand, the Romanian traditionalist environment in the wake of
World War I and, on the other,
France's
integralist faction (the
Action Française), for discussing the role of Romanian traditionalists as
cultural critics in their conflict with the interwar establishment, as well as for researching the links between the neo-traditionalists at
Gândirea magazine and the original editorial line of
Cuvântul daily. The work opened further research into the connections between traditionalism and the emerging
far right, primarily the Iron Guard. In his 1979 introduction to Eugen Lovinescu, Ornea notably focused on his predecessor's thoughts about the necessity of modernization,
Westernization and direct borrowings from
Western Europe, discussing their role in the interwar polemic between modernists and traditionalists, but also evidencing their agreement with the thesis of his
left-wing adversaries (Dobrogeanu-Gherea or
Garabet Ibrăileanu). Ornea's own conclusion stated that Dobrogeanu-Gherea had always been preoccupied with "demonstrating [...] the legitimacy of socialism in our country". This contribution was however criticized by
Lucian Boia. Boia described the monograph as "fundamental", but found that Ornea was lenient and partisan on the issue of Stere's links with the
Central Powers in the
World War I occupation of Romania.
Anii treizeci. Extrema dreaptă românească On the basis of material cited from the interwar press and various archives, Rizescu also finds flaw in the book's perceived search for
centrist references, which, he claims, led Ornea to neglect the contribution of Marxists and peasantists active in the 1930s, and as such to avoid inaugurating an "extensive interpretative revisions" of interwar leftist ideas for a
post-communist world. He notes: "Indeed, while
Tradiționalism și modernitate is broad and ambitious in scope, paying equal attention to social-economic as well as to literary-philosophical debates, and trying to present a complete picture of the intellectual concerns and intellectual trends of the age,
Anii treizeci is quite narrowly focused on the rise of the extreme right and the reactions this phenomenon raised raised among the thinkers of a different orientation. [...] The general impression one gets, after this comparison, is that Ornea [...] avoided to make the effort to re-comprehend, in post-communist terms, the problems connected with the sociological and economic component of pre-communist doctrines and ideological currents, as well as to discover a new, post-totalitarian 'language', fit for preserving the vagaries of the Romanian left." In contrast, Nicolae Manolescu finds that, in interpreting the rise of fascism, disproved the
class struggle perspective inculcated by communist historiography, Ornea's book accurately depicted two intertwined characteristics: the pro-democratic spirit of mainstream Romanian intellectuals; the eccentricity and marginality of both fascists and communists relative to most social environments. Ciotloș, who reserves praise for the "characterologic tints" displayed by
Anii treizeci... (such as in Ornea's decision to discuss the political mythology surrounding Iron Guard leader
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu in a chapter of its own), finds that the "most debatable" and "speculative" thesis of the book is Ornea's treatment of the 1930s far right purely as an ideological appendix of the 1920s (believing this hierarchy to more accurately reflect Ornea's views on the continuity between the 1980s and '90s). The critique is shared by Manolescu, who argues that Ornea had failed to acknowledge that the supremacy of modernism in the 1920s had been replaced with a new wave of traditionalism in the final part of the interwar, and that
racial antisemitism had only become a phenomenon after 1930.
Final volumes Ornea's other late volumes include various collections of essays and literary chronicles, which focus on a diversity of subjects in philology as well the history of ideas. The final such book,
Medalioane de istorie literară, includes chronicles of new historiographic works, as well as overviews of established contributions to literature and political theory or inquiries into themes of historical debate. The former category includes his review of books by
Maria Todorova (
Imagining the Balkans) and
Sorin Alexandrescu. Among the other chapters of the work are debates about the legacy of various 20th century intellectuals—Cioran and Noica, as well as Iorga,
Lucrețiu Pătrășcanu,
Anton Golopenția,
Henri H. Stahl and
Constantin Rădulescu-Motru—, commentary on the work of other celebrated authors from various periods—
Tudor Arghezi,
Ion Luca Caragiale,
Eugène Ionesco,
Panait Istrati,
Ioan Slavici,
Vasile Alecsandri,
Nicolae Filimon—, case studies of Romanian culture in Romania or in outside regions (
Bessarabia), and the cultural ambitions of authoritarian
King of Romania Carol II. One other of the book's essays, which has its starting point the censoring of
Liviu Rebreanu's diary by members of his own family, discusses issues pertaining to the privacy of public figures in general.
Medalioane also included the occasional article on current issues, such as one outlining concerns raised by the closure of Editura Meridiane. The final such collection of disparate pieces (
Zigu Ornea. Permanența cărturarului) grouped other essays. Several of these traced the history of antisemitic legislation in Romania starting with the
1866 Constitution, which had effectively delayed
Jewish Emancipation by treating most Jews as aliens (a measure Ornea defined as an
ab ovo form of discrimination, his syntagma being later borrowed by researcher
Michael Shafir). Other such late contributions focused on reviewing new editions of literary works, based on Ornea's belief that the survival of literary chronicles in
post-1989 Romania needed active encouragement. ==Legacy==