[10][11] The 1887 Încercare asupra semasiologiei române ("Essay on Romanian Semasiology"), presented by Schein as his graduation paper,[4][12] was retrospectively commended by ethnologist Iordan Datcu for its innovative value, and argued by the same commentator to have attracted universally positive reactions from "objective critics".

[12] It reportedly earned him the praise of a future adversary the Education Minister and National Liberal politician Dimitrie Sturdza, who allegedly recommended him to study abroad, reassuring him that, unlike in Gaster's case, "we will receive you back with open arms.

[4][20] The young researcher was also appointed substitute teacher of Latin in Bucharest Gheorghe Lazăr High School by an administrative decision of the Education Ministry, taken despite the antisemitic protestations of Undersecretary Ștefan Michăilescu.

[23] Shortly afterward, Conservative Minister Titu Maiorescu, leader of the influential literary club Junimea and himself one of Lazăr Șăineanu's former professors,[5] appointed him to a position at the university, within the History and Literature Department of V. A.

[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 an ethnic 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".

[29][30] Produced on the basis of folkloric surveys in Muntenian and Oltenian localities such as Dragoslavele, Schitu Golești and Radomir, 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.

[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 among nationalist 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 by Justice Minister George D. Vernescu, on grounds that Șăineanu lacked qualifications.

[46] There followed a major Senate debate, during which Urechia stood out for his repeated criticism of his former competitor, likening him to a Trojan 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".

"[28] Shortly after this incident, the new National Liberal Minister Spiru Haret reshuffled the teaching posts, and Șăineanu, who was holding a new teacher's position at Bucharest's Școala Normală Superioară, found himself unemployed, and opted to seek employment outside Romania, in Paris and Berlin.

[3][4] That same year, he completed his fundamental work in lexicography, Dicționarul universal al limbii române, which codified the Romanian lexis from archaisms and dialectical varieties to neologisms and modern jargon,[3] comprising around 30,000 entries and 80,000 definitions.

[52] Șăineanu followed up with a comprehensive study regarding Levantine presences in the vocabulary and society alike, published by Editura Socec in 1900 (as Influența orientală asupra limbii și culturii române, "The Oriental Influence on Romanian Language and Culture") and being made into a French-language edition in 1901.

[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 Minister Constantin Dissescu, he recalled: "for 24 hours I was politically [Șăineanu's italics] within the Romanian nationhood!

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 being Liu Bannong, Wilhelm Schmidt and Marie-Louise Sjoestedt.

[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 critic Laszlo 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.

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.

[3] However, according to one account, when Șăineanu happened to meet Nicolae 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.

[3] In Les rites de la construction, Șăineanu focused on a set of ballads with a similar construction- and immurement-related subject, present throughout East Central or Eastern Europe, likening the Romanian Meșterul Manole legend to its counterparts in Serbian (Zidanje Skadra), Hungarian (Kőműves Kelemen) and other regional folkloric traditions.

[29] Șăineanu's political adversaries, including V. 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.

According to American 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 alongside Maks Erik, Solomon Birnbaum, Chone Shmeruk, Max and Uriel Weinreich.

[92] Șăineanu's texts followed the evolutions of similar words ending in -liu (such as hazliu, "funny", from haz, "laughter"), of popular figures of speech directly translated from their Turkish original (a bea tutun, "to drink tobacco", or the question în ce ape te scalzi?, "what waters do you bathe in?

[103] It was especially noted for its details on various contributions to Rabelais' means of expression, including staples of French folklore such as the so-called Cris de Paris (chants traditionally produced by Parisian street vendors).

[105] In his work on the subject, Șăineanu also stood out as one of those rejecting the notion that Rabelais' writings have a special anticlerical meaning, arguing instead that his mockery of clerical society was merely a rendition of common and folkloric attitudes—a conclusion quoted in agreement by Annales School historian Lucien Febvre in his own The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century.

[107] In a parallel series of articles, the Romanian scholar also discussed the link between Ancient Roman thinker Pliny the Elder and the Renaissance writer, commenting on the similarity between Rabelais' description of medical practices and statements found in Natural History.

[3] However, Lucian Nastasă notes, the antisemitic background beyond Șăineanu's rejection (as well as the similar affair involving Solomon Schechter) continued to make itself felt throughout those years, with other Jewish scholars (Leon Feraru or Alexandru Graur) being actively prevented from seeking employment in their field.

[115] While cultivating an ambiguous relationship with fascism, which eventually brought him into the ranks of the Iron Guard, philosopher Mircea Eliade, one of Ionescu's other known disciples, publicly deplored Șăineanu's social relegation and Gaster's expulsion.

[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] Writing in 2003, Alexandru Mușina referred to Șăineanu as a "great", "mistreated" and "unrecognized" linguist, defining Influența orientală asupra limbii și culturii române as "his valuable work, as yet unchallenged and still relevant".