By Vlăduț Mihai

     Introduction

     The Rohonczi Codex is a mysterious historical manuscript, which was discovered in Hungary at the beginning of the 19^th century. The Rohonczi Codex and the Voynich Manuscript are the only manuscripts in Europe written in unidentified languages.

        The origins of the book, it`s meaning/content and it`s miniatures (small illustrations) have been investigated by many scholars and amateurs, but no definitive conclusion has been reached so far. 

     The Rohonczi Codex is still a controversial historical document. It is almost certainly a fake, not an authentic historical document. The main reason for the controversy is the fact that the document uses a unique writing system, that has not yet been convincingly translated.     

     Description and historical origin of the Rohonczi Codex 

     The Rohonczi Codex is a leather-bound book. It has 448 pages (244 sheets), each page containing 9-14 lines of writing. The dimensions of the book are 12/10 cm^(1.). 

     The Rohonczi Codex is kept at the Archives of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, with the code Mss. A 1.173/II^(1.).

     The origin of the Rohonczi Codex is unclear. In a book published in 1907, with the title Hungarian rarities, the Hungarian researcher Bela Toth said that the Rohonczi Codex was donated to the Hungarian Academy of Sciences by the Hungarian aristocrat Batthyány Gusztáv, in the year 1838, along with his entire library^(2.).

    The name „Rohonczi” is derived from the little town of Rohoncz, located in what was then western Hungary (nowadays Rechnitz, in Austria). The Rohonczi Codex remained in the town of Rohonc until 1907, when it was moved to Budapest (see Mihai Rădulescu, Un codex cu năbădăi (A restless codex)…, p. 34.).

      The only copy of the Rohonczi Codex extant in the present day was written on paper dated from the early 1500s (see ***, Nu trageți în ambulanță (Do not shoot the ambulance)…, pp. 74-76). This raises serious issues towards the authenticity of the Codex. There is a very high probability that the Codex is a fake from the 18^th-19^th century, purposefully written on paper from the 16^th  century to make them appear older. The main issue is: If the Codex really dates from the 1500s, why has it never been mentioned in any book catalogue before 1838? This question cannot be answered.

     If we consider that in the 19^th century many historical fakes were made-up as a result of a renewed interest in the Antiquity and yhr Middle Ages, due to the influences of both Romantism and nationalism, it is very likely that the Rohonczi Codex is one such fake (see ***, Nu trageți în ambulanță (Do not shoot the ambulance)..., pp. 74-76).

     In the 19^th century, many people were looking for antiquities. Sometimes, when they failed to discover genuine antiquities, they invented fake ones. There are many examples, such as the songs of Ossian or the fake ruins of the courts of Russian princes. In Hungary, many historical forgeries were made in the 19^th century. For example, the researcher Németi Kálman, who also took an interest in the Rohonczi Codex, personally produced a number of fake historical documents, from which a part are still considered authentic nowadays (see ***, Nu trageți în ambulanță (Do not shoot the ambulance)..., pp. 74-76).

     In what language is the Rohonczi Codex written?

     Nobody really knows in what language is the Rohonczi Codex actually written. Where there is little knowledge, there is much incertitude. Nevertheless, researchers have proposed many hypotheses, none of which is conclusive.

     The list of proposed languages is diverse, including: old variants of Hungarian, the Dacian language, vulgar Latin, the Cuman language or the Pecheneg language (see Mihai Rădulescu, Un codex cu năbădăi (A restless codex)…, p. 34).

     Different hypotheses about the Rohonczi Codex. Writing system

     There are different hypothesis about the Rohonczi Codex, such as: I. the Sumerian-Hungarian hypothesis; II. systemic hypotheses; III. Brahmi-Hindi hypothesis; IV. the Dacian-Romanian hypothesis. None of these hypotheses are conclusively proven.

     The founder of Hungarian linguistics, Hunfalvi Pál, sent the Rohonczi Codex for study to the German researcher Jülg Bernhard (Bernát), a former professor from the University of Innsbruck^(2.). In spite of his best efforts, Bernhard was unable to decipher the text of the Rohonczi Codex. In the end, he believed that the signs from the Rohonczi Codex did not have any order. Seemingly, the letters had no meaning. However, Jülg Bernhard identified a number of 150 signs used to write the text in an unknown alphabet. He specified that this value was roughly 10 times bigger than the number of letters from any known alphabet (see Mihai Rădulescu, Un codex cu năbădăi (A restless codex)…, p. 34; Viorica Enăchiuc-Mihai, Cercetări preliminare asupra Codex-ului..., p. 105).

     In 1878, in a book with the title Literatura în epoca arpadienilor (Literature in the age of the Arpadians), the Hungarian researcher Fejérpataki Lászlo, was of the opinion that the Rohonczi Codex was a historical fake^(2.).

     The Hungarian researcher Németi Kálmán tried to systematize the signs used to write the Rohonczi Codex. He wrote his ideas in the books The ABC of the Rohonczi Codex^(3.) and The reading of the old writing. According to Viorica Enăchiuc^(4.), one of the notes made by Németi Kálmán mentions the research made by the French Briquet, who estabilshed, in a catalogue of filigrees, that the pergament paper on which the present day form of the Rohonczi Codex was recopied originated from the North of Italy and can be dated to the years 1529-1540.

     This copy written on paper from the early 1500s (16^th century) is the only version of the Rohonczi Codex that exists in the present day. Viorica Enăchiuc proposed the idea that this was a copy of an earlier original from the 12^th century, but she did not offer any credible argument. This raises many issues, since it might suggest that the Rohonczi Codex would be a historical fake created at the turn of the 18^th-19^th centuries by Hungarian intellectuals belonging to the Romantic cultural current.

     A few questions seem to substantiate the idea that the Rohonczi Codex may be a historical fake from the Romantic era. One such question is: If the copy of the Codex was indeed written in the 1500s, who could have written it in an unused alphabet and an unknown language? (see ***, Nu trageți în ambulanță (Do not shoot the ambulance)…, pp. 74-76). This question does not have any definitive answers.

     In the end all the attempts to decipher the Rohonczi Codex, including that made by Viorica Enăchiuc, have been entirely unsuccessful and unscientific.

     I. The Sumero-Hungarian hypothesis

     The missionary priest Ph.D.. Vajda Jozsef wrote to the Hungarian researcher Ottó Gyürk regarding the Rohonczi Codex. Vajda Jozsef mentioned that the Rohonczi Codex was an extremely secret book that could be found in the Archives of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Jozsef mentioned that the Codex was written using a secret writing that nobody had been able to decipher before. He had personally tried to decipher the writing, and he thought that the letters were similar to the Greek writing, as well as the Phoenician letters. Later, Jozsef tried to decipher the Codex based on the old Hungarian runes, but the attempt was unsuccessful. Vajda Jozsef threw all his notes in a fire^(4.).

     II. Systemic hypotheses

     The researcher Ottó Gyürk published, in the year 1970, a part of his observations, in a Hungarian language article with the title Megfejthető-e a Rohonci-kódex? (Can the Rohonc Codex Be Solved^(5.).

     In this article, Ottó Gyürk held the opinion that the writing system of the Rohonczi Codex was based on numbers (see Mihai Rădulescu, Un codex cu năbădăi (A restless codex)…, p. 34). He also identified a possible value of some of the numbers from the Rohonczi Codex (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., p. 2).

      III. Brahmi-Hindi hypothesis

     IV. The Daco-Romanian hypothesis

     The archeologist Viorica Enăchiuc, born Mihai, made a Romanian translation of the Rohonczi Codex. This was the first translation of the Rohonczi Codex in the world.  The translation was published in book form in the year 2002, under the title Rohonczi Codex. Descifrare, transcriere și traducere. Déchiffrement, transcription et traduction (a. n. Rohonczi Codex. Deciphering, transcription and translation)^{(1.; 18.)}. It also included a French language translation.

     The volume of Rohonczi Codex. Deciphering, transcription and translation by Viorica Enăchiuc includes a bilingual text, in vulgar / popular Latin and in the Romanian language. A French translation was also added by the ALCOR EDIMPEX publishing house. One advantage of the volume, which adds some value to it, is the fact that it includes photograms of the original sheets of the Codex^(12.).

     The translation of the Rohonczi Codex made by Viorica Enăchiuc was discussed in five scientific reports, made by professor PhD. Gheorghe Ciobanu (1987), professor PhD. Ariton Vraciu, a linguist from the University of Iași (9^th April 1983; 25^th march 1984), professor Phd. docent Ioan C. Chițimia (30.06.1990), professor PhD. Nicolae Dunăre (30^th March 1984) and professor PhD. docent Pandele Olteanu, a slavist from the University of Bucharest (30^th June 1990). These reports are completely uncritical, since they take Viorica Enăchiuc at her word, instead of questioning the weak points in her translation. Therefore, these reports are also of low scientific value^(13.).

     It is worth mentioning that, in the Communist era, professor Ariton Vraciu was well known for his „out of the ordinary” scientific ideas (see Ion Oprescu, Voci din public..., p. 30, in the Bibliography). Also, none of these professors had any knowledge of Latin (see ***, Nu trageți în ambulanță (Do not shoot the ambulance)..., pp. 74-76).

     From Enăchiuc's point of view, the text of the Rohonczi Codex is divided in four books, which would implicitly suggest the poetical thinking of the Vlachs. Different literary genres are used, such as the discourse, the ode, or the hymn. The thoughtful meditations, the proverbs and the wise words contained within the Codex would be evidence of the folklore and the philosophy of the ancient Dacians. The texts of the 1^st, 2^nd and 4^th books were, allegedly, signed by the Vlach metropolitans (a. n. high leaders of the Orthodox church) Sova Trasiu, Niles and Timarion. The 3^rd book included the texts of some discourses, embassies and alliances, proverbs, as well as astronomical and musical knowledge, which would have been archived in the chancellery of the Vlach state^(14.).

     The volume Rohonczi Codex. Deciphering... has a big weakness. The translator admits that she has not insisted on the (a. n. assumed, but not proven) equivalence between the signs used to write the Codex and letters from the Romanian language^(15.). The translator seems to ignore an obvious question: if the language of the Rohonczi Codex is indeed popular Latin, like Enăchiuc (a. n. falsely) asserts, why were „Dacian letters” (a. n. whose existence is not even proven) used? Why was the original Codex not written in the Latin alphabet, like the French Oaths from Strasbourg?

     According to Viorica Enăchiuc, the popular/vulgar Latin of the 12th century would be the Romanian language of that era^(27.). However, the academic consensus is that this information is historically false.

     It is worth mentioning that the 19^th century Romanian historian and linguist Bogdan Petriceicu Hașdeu believed in the existence of a Dacian alphabet, which he discussed in the volume Istoria critică a Românilor (The critical history of the Romanians)^(16.). 

     The linguistic studies of Bogdan Petriceicu Hașdeu are worth detailing. After publishing a number of scientific works about the Dacian substratum in the lexicon, the phonetic system and in the morphology of the Romanian language, Hașdeu brought together the study of the language, the study of philology and the study of history. In the 19^th century, the Latinists represented the dominant school of thought in Romanian linguistics. The Latinist school of thought wanted to demonstrate the exclusively Latin character of the Romanian language. Later on (and partly as a result of Hașdeu's research), it was proven that Romanian did not have an exclusively Latin character. The present day theory is that Romanian was formed from vulgar Latin, with a Dacian substratum and a Slavic superstratum (a. n. the Slavic languages, such as Old Church Slavonic, Bulgarian or Serbian, influenced Romanian mostly between 6^th-12^th century)^(35.). At the time when Haședu published his works, the Latinists held prominent positions at the Romanian Academy, in the editorial teams of the Romanian newspapers and magazines and at the only two Romanian universities of that era, in Iași and Bucharest^(30.). 

     Therefore, in order to prove the exclusively Latin character of the Romanian language, the Latinists used numerous falsifications, by eliminating some non-Latin Romanian words, as well as by modifying the form of the words inherited from Latin to make them closer to the originals. The Latinist school of thought was disproven, largely due to the linguistic research done by B. P. Hașdeu. Because of this, Hașdeu was vigorously contested by the Latinists, who tried to destroy his scientific and moral reputation. In order to do this, the Latinists used false accusations against Hașdeu, such as dilettantism, lack of patriotism, improvisation and scientific phantasies, being a Russian propagandist, and even charlatanism. Because of these accusations, Hașdeu, who worked very hard for all of his books, suffered for a very long time. But, in the end, unlike the theories of the Latinists, Hașdeu's ideas about the Dacian substrate of the Romanian language survived the test of time and were proven to be correct^(30.). 

     Other researchers, such as T. T. Burada, Ghizela Sulițeanu, Romulus Vulcănescu, N. Dunăre, T. D. Buraga and Gh. Bichir (see the „Further reading” section). T. T. Burada said that a Hungarian author, named Simon Kazái, believed that the Székely people from Transylvania were the remnants of the Huns. Kazái thought that when the Székely people became aware of the entrance of the Hungarians in the Fields of Pannonia, they intercepted the Hungarians before the borders of Galitzia (a. n. western Ukraine). According to Kazái, the Székely people would have accompanied the Hungarians in their conquest of Pannonia. They would have gained a part of the territory. not in the agricultural plains, but in the mountains, close to the Vlachs/Romanians. Supposedly, from the contact with the Vlachs, the Székely would have also adopted the Vlach alphabet^(16.). 

     Viorica Enăchiuc mistakenly believed that the 13^th century testimony according to which the Székely people borrowed the alphabet from the Vlachs implied the existence of the Vlach writing. These ideas would therefore prove that the original text of the manuscript of the Rohonczi Codex in the 11^th - 13^th centuries^(16.). In reality, these ideas belong to 19^th century historiography, and they are quite outdated.

     If the original text of the Rohonczi Codex had been written in the Latin alphabet, it would not have required a transliteration, since modern Romanian also uses the Latin alphabet. Why was this not the case? 

     The translator's answer is intentionally deceptive, which reinforces the idea that Enăchiuc's translation is academically weak. The translator does mention that a Romanian researcher might be surprised that a text from the middle of the 11^th century, written for people from the same era, would require a translation into modern Romanian. The oldest Romanian language document that is confirmed as authentic, named Scrisoarea lui Neacșu din Câmpulung (The letter of Neacșu from Câmpulung), from 1521, can be read by an average Romanian without any translation (although that person would need to know the cyrillic alphabet)^(15.).

     Enăchiuc does mention that (a. n. unnamed) foreign researchers interested in the other Neo-latin languages, who studied old texts written in vulgar/popular Latin, consider that the popular Latin was spoken after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, in 453 A. D., and until the Early Middle Ages, by populations that were under Roman influence. Enăchiuc mentions, as an exemple, the fact that such texts, written on the present territory of France between the 8^th-13^th centuries, in bilingual editions, contained both the vulgar Latin, or the old French language (a. n. Is it old French or old Romanian? The translator does not seem able to decide.), as well as translations in modern French and explanations of the letters. Furthermore, Enăchiuc correctly reminds us that the first known form of old French are the Oaths from Strasbourg, dating from 842 A. D. This date would be relatively close to the presumed period when the Rohonczi Codex would have been created, in the 1200s^(15.).

     Firstly, Enăchiuc makes a chronological mistake. Vulgar Latin was not spoken after 453 A. D. It started to be spoken at least 500 years earlier, in the 1^st or the 2^nd century B. C.

     Secondly, Enăchiuc's argument appears to be misleading. The Letter of Neacșu of Câmpulung seems to suggest that the transformation from old Romanian to modern Romanian implied far fewer changes, after 1521 A. D., than the English or French language. Enăchiuc does not attempt to explain this, which is a weakness in her argument, since she seems to avoid the issue intentionally, to deceive the readers. 

     According to Viorica Enăchiuc's statements^(6.), her formation was as a philologist, but she was also an archeologist. Enăchiuc graduated from the Romanian [n. a. language] - History section of the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Iași, in the year 1966 (see ***, Nu trageți în ambulanță (Do not shoot the ambulance)..., pp. 74-76). Her archeological research took place on different sites from Romania, between 1968-1989, in the counties of Argeș, Călărași, Giurgiu, Ialomița and Mehedinți. In 1983, she received a scholarship which allowed her to go to Rome, in order to study problems of archeology and historical linguistics. She was also a scientific and technical coordinator of the archeological sites from Băneasa - Calul Bălan, in 1977, Mihai Bravu, in 1977, Gruia and Lipia, in 1978, Dridu - „La Metereze” Point, between 1978-1983, Ogrezeni, in 1984, and Mihăilești, in 1984. 

     This experience allowed her, supposedly, to study numerous testimonies, in the form of monuments and historical documents, regarding the presence of the Dacians and the Vlachs in the space between the Danube, the Carpathians and the Black Sea. According to her own words, her archeological discoveries, corroborated with information from the works of (a. n. unnamed) old historians and geographers, as well as religious writings, suggested new questions to Enăchiuc. They also gave her new data (a. n. which, if based only on the Rohonczi Codex, would be completely unreliable) regarding the history of the Romanians in the 11^th-14^th centuries, as well as the relations with the Byzantines, the Bulgars, the Cumans, the Germans and Hungarians, the Pechenegs and, later, the Tartars. These subjects were discussed by Enăchiuc in a series of studies published in scientific history journals/magazines, as well as in scientific communications at different national scientific sessions and international congresses^(6.).

     In this context, the information regarding the existence of the Rohonczi Codex drew the special attention of Viorica Enăchiuc. Therefore, she forwarded a request to the Institute of Historical and Social-Political Sciences from Bucharest (n. a. belonging to the Central Committee of the Romanian Communist Party), at the beginning of the year 1982. The director of the Institute, Ion Popescu-Puțuri followed the required procedures towards the Academy of Sciences of Hungary, so that the Institute would obtain a copy of the Rohonczi Codex. It is worth mentioning that Ion Popescu-Puțuri was a highly disreputable Communist ideologue (see ***, Nu trageți în ambulanță (Do not shoot the ambulance)..., pp. 74-76, in the Bibliography section). As such, the suppositions that Enăchiuc's translation of the Rohonczi Codex might have been the result of a political command from the Communist regime do have a factual basis. At the end of the year 1982, a full photographic copy of the original Rohonczi Codex was given to Viorica Enăchiuc, for research, by the Institute for Historical and Social-Political Sciences from Bucharest, through the influence of the director^{(6; 7.)}.

     According to the historian and numismatologist Augustin Deac, he personally brought the copy to the country, as a colored microfilm. Deac also mentions that the Rohonczi Codex would have been translated with the help of the Romanian-Latin dictionary of Ioan Nădejde (see Augustin Deac, Codex Rohonczy..., pp. 5, 12).

     As soon as she received the photographic copy of the Rohonczi Codex, Viorica Enăchiuc started her research. According to her own words, Enăchiuc continued the research in her free time, using her own money^(19.).

     Less than one year after she received a photographic copy of the Rohonczi Codex, Viorica Enăchiuc published her first preliminary research about the Codex. Her research appeared in the article Cercetări preliminare asupra „Codexului Rohonczi” (Preliminary research on the „Rohonczi Codex”), published in 1983 in two distinct numbers from the Anale de istorie (Annals of history), the magazine of the Institute of Historical and Social-Political Sciences^(6.) (See also Viorica Enăchiuc-Mihai, Cercetări preliminare asupra Codex-ului...).

     Enăchiuc seems to have moved very fast. In her preliminary article, Enăchiuc had already established her „conclusion” that the Rohonczi Codex would have been written in the 12^th century, in vulgar Latin, with Dacian characters. It appears that even in 1983, Enăchiuc had very clear and rigid ideas about the writing and the language of the Codex. She also included a few translated sheets (***, Nu trageți în ambulanță (Do not shoot the ambulance)..., pp. 74-76).

     During the following two decades of supposed research, Enăchiuc's pseudoscientific conclusion seems to have remained exactly the same. Viorica Enăchiuc believed that the Rohonczi Codex was written in the hilly area of Wallachia, just South of the Carpathian mountains, in the chancellery of a supposed Vlach political entity from the 11^th-12^th centuries. University professor PhD. Ariton Vraciu believed in the same dating of the Rohonczi Codex, based on a comparison of the miniatures from the Codex with other miniatures from different other cadexes, as well as elements of writing that would have been kept until the 14^th century. Following Enăchiuc`s research, ethnomusicologist professor Gheorghe Ciobanu believed that the Rohonczi Codex was written in 12^th century popular/vulgar Latin, with letters from a supposed Dacian writing. According to Enăchiuc, the writing was ordered from right to left and from the bottom upwards, so that, on every page, the first line would become the last. Both the writing and the miniatures from the Rohonczi Codex would have been executed with a quill^{(6; 8.; 27.)}.

     The context and the reception of Viorica Enăchiuc's translation of the Rohonczi Codex

     As Sebastian Ștefănescu notices (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., p. 1), the publication of Viorica Enăchiuc's translation of the Rohonczi Codex should be seen in the context of an older „tradition” of fakes and exaggerated interpretations in the Romanian historiography, which began in the 18^th century with the Latinist school some of the ideas of the historians B. P. Hașdeu and Nicolae Densușianu (n. a. It should be noted that only part of their ideas belong to this category, while other ideas have been validated by more recent research). This trend of „forced interpretations” of history continued under the Romanian Communist regime, which encouraged feelings of thracomania (historical romanticisation of the ancient Thracian and Dacian people), due to an ideological imperative of distancing between Ceaușescu and the Soviet Union. This trend continued even after the fall of Communism in 1989, through the actions of renowned Romanian public figures, like the author Pavel Coruț, the medic Napoleon Săvescu or Daniel Roxin.

     The publication of Enăchiuc's translation of the Rohonczi Codex drew a lot of attention. The volume received a prize at the International Dacology Congress organized in Bucharest in 2002 by the Society of New York, led by Napoleon Săvescu. At the same Congress, a prize was obtained by professor Augustin Deac, for a study with the title Istoria adevărului istoric (The history of historical truth), published in the small Romanian town of Giurgiu (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., pp. 1-2).

     Many of the reactions to the Enăchiuc translation of the Rohonczi Codex were controversial. Such is the case for the prefaces and scientific reports written by university professors such as Ariton Vraciu, Ioan C. Chițimia, Nicolae Dunăre and Pandele Olteanu, for the article written by Andrei Vartic and for the adaptation of the melody from the Rohonczi Codex made by Gh. Ciobanu (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., p. 2).

     Other articles were hostile to the Enăchiuc translation of the Rohonczi Codex. Three exemples are the articles written by Sebastian Stănculescu, Sorin Olteanu and Dan Ungureanu. Sorin Olteanu considered that the Enăchiuc translation was false, while Dan Ungureanu was of the opinion that the manuscript of the Rohonczi Codex was a XIX century fake (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., p. 2).

     In the Romanian historiography, the problem of the Rohonczi Codex raised many issues. According to Sebastian Stănculescu, most of these issues referred to the unjustified translation made by Viorica Enăchiuc from the so-called popular Latin language. In his own study, Sebastian Stănculescu that the Enăchiuc transliteration of the Rohonczi Codex raises many worrying issues, which would make the debates around the transliteration pointless (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., p. 2).

     IV. 1. The „dubious” quality of Viorica Enăchiuc's translation

         Viorica Enăchiuc mentions that the translation of the Rohonczi Codex required a long effort, but also an interdisciplinary approach, which combined knowledge of archeology, paleography, ethnology and folklore, as well as linguistic, stylistic and musical elements^(19.).

     Enăchiuc supposedly accomplished the translation of the Rohonczi Codex after an activity of two decades (n. a. between 1982-2002). During the translation she was preoccupied mainly by the paleographic aspects, such as the comparative translation of different sets of signs from various region from Romania: Corbi area, Argeș, Dridu, „La Metereze”, Ialomița County. Enăchiuc considered this writing specific to the Gârla Mare culture^(6.).

     According to Enăchiuc, the writing from the Rohonczi Codex was formed from 150 different signs, written from right to left and from the bottom upwards. It is hard to accept the idea that the text was written from bottom upwards, because it involves a very difficult position for the human hand. While writing, the hand would stain and erase the previous lines of writing. The entire history of human writing does not contain a single example of bottom upwards writing. For these reasons, Enăchiuc's idea is contrary to the most elementary common sense (see ***, Nu trageți în ambulanță (Do not shoot the ambulance)..., pp. 74-76).

     Furthermore, the idea that the Dacian alphabet was formed from 150 signs is highly unlikely. This is suggested by the fact that Enăchiuc uses only 20 sounds in her transliteration (see ***, Nu trageți în ambulanță (Do not shoot the ambulance)..., pp. 74-76).

     The presence of these 150 signs represents the main reason why the Rohonczi Codex was never deciphered before Viorica Enăchiuc's failed attempt (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., p. 2).

     Following her studies on the writing from the Rohonczi Codex, Enăchiuc mentioned the following aspects: 1. some signs had analogies in syllabic writings used by Indo-European populations since the Bronze age; 2. the signs have analogies with the phonetic writings of the same populations, from the period between the 7^th century B. C. - 9^th century A. D.^(6.). This would indicate that the supposed writing belonged to some Indo-European populations, not to Latin populations^(28.).

     The 1^st point was argumented by Enăchiuc in 1983 in the article Cercetări preliminare asupra „Codexului Rohonczi” (Preliminary research on the „Rohonczi Codex”)^(6.) (see Viorica Enăchiuc-Mihai, Cercetări preliminare asupra Codex-ului...). The 2^nd point was argued by Enăchiuc in an English language article with the title Writing in the Gârla Mare Culture (the Bronze Age) and its links with writing in the Harappa and Linear A culture. At this point, Enăchiuc also mentions^{(6., footnote 4)} the following authors: V. V. Sevoroškin, G. G. Turćanunov, Zvonimir Kulundžić and Maria Comșa. More information about the exact articles used by Enăchiuc can be found by looking at the respective authors in the „Further Reading” section, at the end of the current article.

     According to Viorica Enăchiuc, some signs from the Rohonczi Codex (see page IX) can be found in the material cultures specific to the Neolithic era, discovered on archeological sites from the territory of Romania. In support of this idea, Enăchiuc quotes from the researches of Maria Gimbutas, André Parrot and Hortensia Dumitrescu (n. a. see the corresponding authors in the „Further reading” section). Furthermore, Enăchiuc mentions that ethnological researches have identified in the Romanian folk art certain symbols which had more than just a decorative role. These symbols could be considered, supposedly, as remnants of a writing used in antiquity which had lost their phonetic value, but had maintained their communication function. In support of this idea, Enăchiuc mentions the research of the following authors: Romulus Vulcănescu, Nicolae Dunăre, Teodor T. Buraga and Gh. Bichir (n. a. see the „Further reading” section)^(7.).

     Nevertheless, Viorica Enăchiuc does not provide any real, concrete evidence, or even a logical argument, to support her position. As such, Enăchiuc's idea that some signs from the Rohonczi Codex can be found in material culture from the Romanian Neolithic, where they would have had a communication function as part of a written language, is academically weak and can be disregarded.

     Andrei Vartic agreed in part with Viorica Enăchiuc, but, at some point, he began to distance himself from her arguments. Vartic admitted the idea that numerous (n. a. but not all) signs from the writing system of the Rohonczi Codex had Carpathian-Danubian origins, dating from different eras, but no later than the period when the original Codex was written, in the 12^th century. Also, Vartic considered that the Codex contained three types of writing: phonemic writing, mixed with syllabic and hieroglyphic writing. (see Mihai Rădulescu, Un codex cu năbădăi (A restless codex)…, p. 34).

     Another flaw in Enăchiuc's translation is related to the calendars used in the manuscript of the Rohonczi Codex. Viorica Enăchiuc forgets that, during the 11^th-12^th century the Byzantine calendar was used, which counts years since the beginning of the world. However, in the manuscript of the Codex, the years are numbered after Christ. This is a clear indication that the Rohonczi Codex is a historical fake from the 18^th-19^th centuries (see ***, Nu trageți în ambulanță (Do not shoot the ambulance)..., pp. 74-76).

     Enăchiuc's translation of the Rohonczi Codex is not just flawed. Her volume is entirely pseudoscientific, and the presence of five academic reports made by five different Romanian university professors between 1983-1990, during the last years of the Communist regime, represents clear evidence of academic imposture. Enăchiuc's volume is nothing less than a complete waste of paper.

     IV. 2. A historically flawed argument made by Enăchiuc

     According to Enăchiuc^(9.), professor Vittorio Peri, who studied Hieronymus's Breviary (a Latin manuscript from the Reginensis Fond of the Apostolic Library of the Vatican) picked up some statements by Aethicus Histrus (4^th century A. D.) containing the table with the 4 alphabets known in the era: the Judaic, Latin, Greek alphabet and another supposed alphabet, which would have been used in the geographic area of the Lower Danube, before the Glagolithic writing (a. n. also see I. Dumitru-Snagov, in the „Further reading” section).

     Also, Simonis de Keza, in his Gesta Hungarorum (Acts of the Hungarians) an important historical chronicle written in 1282, during the reign of king Ladislau IV of Hungary (1272-1290), mentions that the Széckely people from Transylvania had mingled with the Vlachs and had adopted the Vlach letters in their writing^(9.). The work of Simonis de Keza was a continuation of a previous chronicle with the same title written by the writer Anonymous of king Bela. It is important to mention that Enăchiuc does not seem to have had first hand knowledge of the Gesta Hungarorum. Enăchiuc seems to have taken this information, which could have been misconstrued, from the Romanian 19^th century historian and linguist B. P. Hașdeu.

     In her bibliography, which, to her credit, is included in Viorica Enăchiuc's translation of the Rohonczi Codex^(10.), she quotes the volume Istoria critică a românilor (The critical history of Romanians) by B. P. Hașdeu (a. n. see the „Further reading” section). Hașdeu mentioned that Simonis de Keza would have included the information that the Széckely, supposedly, took the letters from the Vlachs and adopted them into their writing. Hașdeu tells us that in the 15^th century an exemplar of the Gesta Hungarorum was located at the Imperial Library from Vienna. The Endlicher edition was created based on this exemplar. This authentic Hungarian chronicle had already been translated in German, in a shortened form, by Enric de Muglein, before 1340 (a. n. see Kovachich, in the „Further reading” section).

     Enăchiuc^(9.) thinks that the historical information mentioned by the Roman poet Publius Ovidius Naso (43 î. Hr. - 17 d. Hr.), along with the information from the previous paragraph, can be corroborated with comparative studies about the writing systems from Gârla Mare culture (Romania), Harappa culture (India) and Lineary A writing (Minoan Crete). This would demonstrate, in Enăchiuc's opinion, that the Dacians had their own writing, which they used to write different documents before the settlement of the Bulgarians in the South of the Danube, in the 7^th century A. D. But Enăchiuc does not provide any evidence to support her conclusion, so it can simply be disregarded as a historical fake.

     According to Enăchiuc^(9.), the Vlachs, ancestors of the Getae-Dacians, as the Rohonczi Codex would „prove”, continued to use their own signs to write different documents in vulgar/popular Latin. Enăchiuc (who is intentionally deceiving the uninformed readers), thinks that this fact is unsurprising, since the conversion of the Getae-Dacians to Christianity would have occurred with the help of texts written in Latin.

     The idea that the Getae-Dacians were converted to Christianity with the help of Latin texts is controversial. There is serious evidence that the Latin language had a profound influence on the religious vocabulary of the Vlachs. Some Vlach/Romanian religious words have equivalents in Latin (Romanian „cruce” - Latin „Crux” - cross; „biserică” - „basilica” - church”; etc.), but this does not conclusively prove that Latin texts were used to convert the Getae-Dacians to Christianity. Enăchiuc's intention to deceive the uninformed reader (and thus create a historical falsity) becomes apparent when she fails to mention that there is no academic consensus regarding the conversion of the Getae-Dacians to Christianity.

     Enăchiuc considers^(9.) that the adoption by the Vlachs of the new writing system, which used Latin letters, was a lengthy process that implied a change in mentality and giving up the old pre-Christian pagan traditions. The Rohonczi Codex would „prove” that the process was not finished before the beginning of the 2^nd millennium. This part of Enăchiuc's argumentation seems to be entirely made-up. There are many issues with it. Some of the issues are: 1. She does not prove that such a language system was even used by the Vlachs before the 12^th century. With the exception of the Rohonczi Codex, which is a historical fake, there are no other contemporary documents to corroborate this; 2. The Romanians only adopted Latin letters in 1862 (certainly not in the 12^th century). Until 1862, the Romanians / Vlachs from the North of the Danube used the Cyrillic alphabet; 3. The change in mentality from Pagan to Christian thinking might not be as big as Enăchiuc seems to suggest, since many pagan customs (a. n., for exemple, the burial custom of giving a hen or a cock to the grave digger) were maintained after the conversion to Christianity.

     Another argument proposed by Enăchiuc^(9.) is that the history of writing contains similar cases. One such case existed in the Byzantine Empire. In the 8^th century a Gospel book was written in the Greek language, with Latin letters (see Yves Bonnefoy and André Mary in the „Further reading” section). This argument is entirely irrelevant to her thesis, because it does not prove in any way the authenticity of the Rohonczi Codex.

     Enăchiuc conveniently forgets to say that: 1. the very existence of „Getae-Dacian signs” is not historically proven; 2. the existence of a Getae-Dacian writing is not proven; 3. there are no documents written by the Vlachs from the North of the Danube in the Latin language before the 12^th century. The fact that Enăchiuc intentionally neglects to mention these aspects means that she has acted in bad faith and has purposefully created a historical fake through her translation of the Rohonczi Codex. Due to this omission alone, her translation can be considered scientifically, academically and historically irrelevant.

     IV. 3. Enăchiuc's flawed conclusion

     According to Enăchiuc's own words, „following the detailed study, and the deciphering of the writing used to redact the text of the Rohonczi Codex, along with the analysis and the historical contextualization of the miniatures”, she reached the conclusion that „this monument of history and literature named the Rohonczi Codex (after the Hungarian locality where it was found), is, in reality, a detailed chronicle about the society of the Vlachs from the 11^th-13^th centuries”^(8.).

     Enăchiuc^(10.) compiled a Dictionary, added to the end of her translation of the Rohonczi Codex, which contains a vocabulary compared with the Latin language and other old Indo-European languages. The Dictionary appears to be entirely made-up.

     The vulgar Latin - Romanian Dictionary created by Enăchiuc is not even worthy of this name. It is not even a proper dictionary, but a list of made-up words. This list raises many concerns. For example, the list of words from 12th century vulgar Latin (n. a. in the form invented by Enăchiuc) does not have a single common word with 15th century Romanian, which is very well known by mainstream linguists (see ***, Nu trageți în ambulanță (Do not shoot the ambulance)…, pp. 74-76).

     According to Enăchiuc The existence of the Rohonczi Codex would prove that the religious service in the old Romanian Orthodox churches was done in the old vulgar / popular Latin, until the 12th-13th century, when it would have been replaced as a church language by Slavonic or Greek. The gradual replacement of the old Romanian writing, which supposedly used letters transmitted from the Dacians through „local evolution”, would have happened because the Greek and Slavonic writing had fewer signs^(12.).

     There are plenty of issues with this argument made by Enăchiuc. It is so flawed that it is completely unscientific and unhistorical. First of all, since the Rohonczi Codex is, in all likelihood, a complete historical fake, which can not be dated convincingly to the 12^th century, it can not prove anything regarding that era. Second, nobody on Earth spoke popular Latin in the XII century. Third, there is no strong evidence that Dacian characters/letters have ever existed. Most historians and academics that have studied the subject consider that the Dacians did not have a writing system. Challenging this idea would require ample evidence that Enăchiuc does not provide.

     The Romanian language was already spoken in the 11^th-12^th centuries. This scientific fact, which is completely ignored by Enăchiuc, is known through a comparison between Romanian and Aromanian. The common fond of these two dialects is very similar to the Romanian language that would have been spoken in the 11^th century (see ***, Nu trageți în ambulanță (Do not shoot the ambulance)…, pp. 74-76).

     Apparently, her 20 years of research were not enough time for Enăchiuc to offer an equivalence for her supposed Dacian letters, or even a minimal grammar of her entirely fictitious 12^th century vulgar Latin.

     Enăchiuc was of the opinion that her results proved that the „vulgar Latin”, which she calls „the old Romanian language”, was used by a population which lived on both sides of the Carpathian mountains, „from the Tisa river to the Black Sea - Dnister river and from the Danube to the source of the Dnister river”. This is, supposedly (but not truly) proven by the Rohonczi Codex. Thus, the old „vulgar Latin” represented an evolved stage of the Indo-European language of the Getae-Dacians, which they would have kept after the conversion to Christianity, including in the chancellery of the Vlach state (by which Enăchiuc probably means the Second Vlacho-Bulgarian Empire/Tsardom, a real medieval state from South-Eastern Europe, tough she does not specify). Across many centuries, this language would have received influences from the Latin, Slavonic and Greek languages^(11.).

     This point in Enăchiuc's argument is a historical falsity. For exemple, Latin was not used in the chancellery of the First or the Second Vlacho-Bulgarian Empire/Tsardom, neither in the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldova. Latin was only used in official state documents from Transylvania, which had deeper ties with Central and with Western Europe. Furthermore, according to the scientific and academic consensus, the Romanian language is a Neolatin language, from the same language family with Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese and the Romansch language from Switzerland. Romanian is not an evolved version of the language of the Getae-Dacians. 

     Instead, modern scholars like Peter R. Petrucci^(31.) believe that Romanian descended from the vulgar/popular Latin spoken in the Eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. The scholar Gabriela Pană Dindelegan^(32.) believed that the substratum of the Romanian language was the language spoken by the Romanized Latin population from the North and the South of the Danube, namely Thraco-Dacian. Thraco-Dacian is not attested directly by any surviving documents, and it has left few historical traces. The direct mentions of the Thraco-Dacian language are limited only to a few sporadic notes from ancient authors, to some Greek and Latin inscriptions, as well as some coins, where a small number of proper names are mentioned. 

     Unlike Viorica Enăchiuc, most modern researchers, such as Petrucci, Dindelegan, Rosetti and Marius Sala^(31.) agree that both Daco-Romanian (a. n. the modern Romanian language, spoken North of the Danube) and Istro-Romanian (a. n. a Romanian dialect from the South of the Danube) developed from a Proto-Romanian language from the North of the Danube, before the 10^th century. On the other hand, two other dialects, namely Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian, developed from a Southern version of the Proto-Romanian language 

     Therefore, the only true things in Enăchiuc's argumentation are: 1. Romanian did evolve from Vulgar Latin; 2. Romanian did receive influences from Slavonic and Greek. But, other than this, her argument appears to be completely wrong.

     In short, Enăchiuc's conclusion is that the text of the Rohonczi Codex was written, most likely, between the first half of the 11^th century and the beginning of the 12^th century, in vulgar/popular Latin. This conclusion is flawed, because Enăchiuc's translation is academically unsound^(9.). 

     The very existence of the supposed 12^th century popular Latin, as well as the Dacian alphabet, is not proven. Also, most likely, the miniatures are not originals from the 12^th century, but reproductions dating from the 16^th century copy of the Rohonczi Codex. Enăchiuc does not provide evidence to support the idea that the miniatures are 12^th century originals. To assume without such evidence that they date from the 12^th century is an anachronism and a serious historical error. Therefore, Enăchiuc's conclusion is false.

     The meaning/content of the Rohonczi Codex

     The content of the Rohonczi Codex, according to the translation made by Viorica Enăchiuc

     Viorica Enăchiuc said that the translation of the Rohonczi Codex gave her many surprises. She stipulated that, besides general information about the geography of the region, the Codex includes information about the socio-economical realities, the political and military organization, the architecture and the diplomatic relations. All this information is about an era from Romanian history for which there are no other documents^(14.). 

     But Enăchiuc ignores the fact that, since [1] there are no other documents from this era regarding Romanian history and [2] the authenticity of the Rohonczi Codex is disputed  (to put it mildly), there is no way to corroborate the historical information from the Codex. Since the information cannot be corroborated, it cannot be accepted as historical fact.

     Enăchiuc's lamentable attempt at „translating” the Rohonczi Codex is heavily marked by the protochronist atmosphere of the 1980s (see Mihai Rădulescu, Un codex cu năbădăi (A restless codex)…, p. 34). From Enăchiuc's untrustworthy translation of the Rohonczi Codex, we discover the history of a fictional world. If her translation had not been presented as a historical document, one might think of it as a bad novel. The translation has a very weak and tangential connection with the historical reality of the Balkans and Eastern Europe in the 11^th-12^th centuries. Other than the historical reality of the Second Vlacho-Bulgarian empire (a. n. which was not an exclusively Vlach state, as Enăchiuc implies), no other information from the Rohonczi Codex can be corroborated.

   What follows is a sample of purely fictitious historical imaginary, that is closer to literary works than to any kind of historical reality. It is too bad that Enăchiuc was no better as a writer/poet than she was as a linguist. She was equally awful at both these jobs. 

 The fictional history from the Rohonczi Codex, includes information about the geographical location of the so-called Vlach state, the religion, the diplomatic relations during the last of the historical relations, the initiation of the young Vlachs, the existence of a autochthonous literature with various genres, as well as the poetical and melodic secular thinking^(19.). 

     As such, the Rohonczi Codex tells us that a centralized Vlach state existed, beginning from the 11^th century. The territory would be between the left shore of the Tisa river, the Dnister river, the Danube river, the Black Sea and the Cernahora mountains, in the Balkan Peninsula^{(14.; 19.)}. The Rarău mountain is also mentioned frequently. The only settlements mentioned on this entire territory are the village of Ineu, the city of Arad, the villages of Olbia and Dridu, the last one being near the modern city of Bucharest. Rarău, Ineu and Dridu have the highest number of mentions, since they were locations that needed to be defended (see ***, Nu trageți în ambulanță (Do not shoot the ambulance)…, pp. 74-76).

     This state would have been led by Vlad, ruler of the Vlachs, master (a. n. sovereign) and worthy of being king^(14.). The personality of the ruler Vlad appears to be a complete historical falsity. No genuine primary source from that era contains any mention of Vlad. The Byzantine princess Ana Comnena does not mention Vlad in the Alexiad, her biography of her father, emperor Alexie I Comnen. Also Vlad is not mentioned in any historical document about Constantin Ducas or Robert of Flanders (see ***, Nu trageți în ambulanță (Do not shoot the ambulance)…, pp. 74-76).

     Vlad was a trusted^(14.) ally of the Byzantine Empire. He received embassies from the Byzantines. Vlad's fictional history includes receiving embassies from the Byzantine emperor Alexie I Comnen, from Constantin Ducas and from Robert of Flanders (see ***, Nu trageți în ambulanță (Do not shoot the ambulance)…, pp. 74-76). Vlad would have made alliances with the Goths, with the Hungarians, with the Venetians and the Western Crusaders. With or without these allies, supposedly, Vlad organized the defense of the country against invasions of the Pechenegs, the Oghuz and the Cuman people.

     The Goths are an especially interesting case. Did the Goths invent a time machine? Apparently, in the Rohonczi Codex, the Goths sent an embassy to Vlad in the year 1101. The Goths must have used Merlin's magical powers to send their ambassadors through a time portal, given that the last time the Goths were mentioned in the real history was in the 6^th century A. D. It is either this, or Viorica Enăchiuc committed an embarrassing anachronism. In either case, the time traveling Goths are an interesting idea in the field of historical fiction. They are a disqualifying error, when treated as historical fact.

     Next to Vlad, the Vlach metropolitans helped with the effort to keep the faith and the territory. The metropolitans encouraged the young soldiers, by asking them to fight, rather than run away from the enemy, and to always return home victorious. The Codex mentions three metropolitans: Sova Trasiu, Niles and Timarion^(14.).

     Viorica Enăchiuc thinks that, before the translation of the Rohonczi Codex, Timarion was thought of as just an ordinary person from the 12^th century. In other situations, he was identified either with a rhetor that had the same name, with Teodor Prodromos, or Nikolaos Kallicles. According to the inaccurate information from the Rohonczi Codex, Timarion was the metropolitan of Dacia in the 11^th-12^th centuries, as well as an orator and a poet. At the end of the 4^th book of the Codex, there are epigrams about that illustrate Timarion's qualities as a poet^(17.).

     In terms of religion, the Rohonczi Codex mentions the coexistence of the official Christian cult, upheld by the metropolitans, along with pre-Christian remnants of the cult of the Sun, which was in the process of being abandoned. Apparently, there would have been a collaboration between the Vlach ruler, Vlad, and the metropolitans, which had both a confessional function, as well as a political and military role. As such, they would contribute, using the church authority, to centralize Vlad's political power^(19.).

     The Rohonczi Codex mentions the following information about the diplomatic relations of the Vlach state with the neighbours during the era of the last migrations, as well as the alliances made by Vlad, with the purpose of organizing the resistance against the invaders. The invaders were the Pechenegs, the Cumans, and the Oghuz people. The Codex mentions information about the alliances between Vlad and the Byzantine Emperor, with the Goths and the faraway County of Flanders, as well as the Hungarians. Also, Vlad would have accepted to allow the armies of the crusaders to cross the territory of the country, in their route towards the Holy City^(19.).

     Regarding war, the fictional history from the Rohonczi Codex mentions that the young Vlachs became and were initiated as warriors. The young Vlach warriors gained a special status, symbolized through the fact that they could start wearing a manly hat. The young people, named „eagles”, would have been considered heroes when they returned home. The Codex contains a military oath of the Vlachs that were going to war. In reality, the oath is fictional, and the fact that it is presented as historically accurate means that Viorica Enăchiuc's translation is intentionally deceptive^(19.). This part of Enăchiuc's translation is inspired by the patriotism of the national communist ideology from the Ceaușescu era, which was prevalent in 1983, when Enăchiuc started working on the translation.

     The existence of an autochthonous Romanian literature, with varied genres, in the 12^th century, is a complete falsity. The Rohonczi Codex falsely maintains that, in the 12^th century, the religious literature had theological studies, church songs and martyrial acts. Furthermore, the Romanian non-religious literature of the era would have had different genres, like the chronicle, the ode, the hymn, the epigram and the discourse. The discourses were of two types: diplomatic and military^(19.).

     Regarding the poetical thinking and the supposed writing of the Romanians from the 12^th century, the fictional history from the Rohonczi Codex is quite rich. In his scientific report ^(28.) professor Ariton Vraciu from the University of Iași (Romania) was of the mistaken opinion that the Rohonczi Codex was the 8^th oldest manuscript written by all the Latin peoples.

     Professor Ariton Vraciu reaches the ridiculous conclusion that the beginning of the poetical thinking of the Romanians dates from the 11th century, not from the 14^th century, as was thought by previous researchers (a. n. and is admitted by the mainstream historiography to this day). The basis of all the literary genres of the supposed 12^th century Romanian literature would be the Dacian folklore and philosophy, the Latin rhetorical art and the social-political realities of the 11^th-12^th centuries^(28.).

     The melody from the Rohonczi Codex

     In a scientific report dated 2^nd april 1987^(18.), the university professor Gheorghe Ciobanu (PhD.) mentioned that in november 1983 he received for study page 212, photographed, of the Rohonczi Codex. from the archeologist Viorica Enăchiuc.

     The ethnomusicologist Gheorghe Ciobanu was asked to study page 212 of the Rohonczi Codex, which includes a meandering series of points shaped like a snake, located between two lines of text. The purpose of the study was to determine if the series might represent a musical notation. If the answer was positive, Ciobanu was requested to write a study regarding the transcription of the melody composed, supposedly, during the 11^th-12^th centuries. Viorica Enăchiuc believed that the melody was a hymn of the Vlachs from the 11^th-12^th centuries^{(18.; 19.)}.

     As a specialist in religious music, Gh. Ciobanu discussed the musical notation from the Rohonczi Codex, presenting his results in a scientific communication with the title „Melodia din Codexul Rohonczi” (The melody of the Rohonczi Codex), sustained on the date of 23^rd February 1990 at the Romanian Academy, in a academic communication session with the theme „Disciplinaritatea și interdisciplinaritatea în studierea muzicii populare” (Disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity in the study of popular music), organized by the Folklore Comission of the Romanian Academy^(29.).

     Referring to the musical notation, Gh. Ciobanu considered that the neumes utilized in the notation belonged to the group of musical writing known as „en points”, which was composed from points of different forms and sizes. The order of the notations would represent the ascending and descending progression of the human voice during singing^(20.).

     The text contains a diastematic notation, which was undergoing an evolutionary process. At the beginning, regardless of their formes, the neumes were aligned horizontally, above the text. Later, in the 10^th - 12^th centuries, the neumes were written at different heights, indicating, in a rudimentary way, the movement of the melody. Ciobanu thought it can be assumed that the scribe arranged the points of the musical notation based on an ideal line, if not on a incised line. In the left side of the melody, which was read from right to left, there was a right line, along with another oblique line, going towards the left, that crossed the first line. Viorica Enăchiuc believed that this crossing was a prefiguration of the letter F, which, in the 11^th century, represented a sign for the writing and reading of the neumes. All these notation signs, or point neumes, written on a real or imaginary line, indicated the name of the sound situated on that line. All the other neumes from the musical scale received their name by relationship to the notation signs(20.).

     Ciobanu mentions that his interpretation of the musical notation from the Rohonczi Codex was a hypothetical variant of the real musical notation from the 12^th century. The transcription of the musical notation raised many issues, due to the fact that the tempered musical system used in the present was only fully developed around the year 1700. According to Ciobanu, it is possible, but unlikely, that lack of skill of the 16^th century copyist of the Rohonczi Codex might have created some mismatches between the 12th century original text, and the 16th century copy of the Codex. The 16th century version is the only copy of the Rohonczi Codex available in the present^(20.).

     In Viorica Enăchiuc's translation, the musical notation was reproduced, based on the 16th century copy of the Rohonczi Codex^(20.).

     Gheorghe Ciobanu believed that the melody from the Rohonczi Codex was written using Gregorian neumes, dated from the 11^th-12^th centuries. This might indicate that the scribe of the melody would have been a Catholic missionary that came to the Vlachs, as part of an embassy. The ornaments of the melody, which are similar to those from Gregorian songs, would also indicate that the author may have been a Catholic cleric. In spite of this, Ciobanu thought that the modal structure of the melody from the Rohonczi Codex could not have originated from the Gregorian repertoire, where it was very rare. Instead, according to Ciobanu, it could have been taken from the Vlach folklore, where it was widely used in the repertoire of children's songs, as well as in the Christmas carols(20.).

     According to his own scientific report^(18.), Ciobanu understood that the series represented on page 212 of the Rohonczi Codex was an old Gregorian musical notation. In 1983, this style of musical notation was already very outdated. Since Ciobanu had not encountered Gregorian musical notations in his previous work^(21.), he was forced to go through a rigorous documentation process, which allowed him to transcribe the melody (adaugă imaginea de la pagina 532). 

     It is worth mentioning that the melody contained in the Rohonczi Codex was transcribed by Gh. Ciobanu on a musical portative. Before the fall of Communism in December 1989, the melody was played in a patriotic manifestation by a choral and instrumental formation from the capital of Romania (see Augustin Deac, Codex Rohonczy..., p. 12).

     As a result of his scientific report, Ciobanu reached the rather brave conclusion that this melody was of Vlach origin, being the oldest secular Romanian (Vlach) melody known by history^(18.).

     While Ciobanu`s conclusion is brave, it is also tentative, since it does not have enough evidence behind it. Unless more evidence is discovered in the future, Ciobanu`s statement that the Gregorian musical notation from the Rohonczi Codex is the oldest secular Vlach melody can be accepted, at best, only as a working hypothesis, and certainly not as a definitive conclusion. The historical bibliography regarding the vlachs does not provide sufficient corroborating evidence to support Ciobanu`s conclusion.

     Miniatures from the Rohonczi Codex

     The text of the Rohonczi Codex contains 87 miniatures depicting religious, secular and military scenes, as well as astrological images, including representations of three astronomical instruments, known as astrolabes^(22.). Viorica Enăchiuc was of the (a. n mistaken) opinion that the secular events described in the miniatures occurred in a territory with a varied relief, with mountains, fields, flowing waters with islands, close to or within archeological sites specific to the territory of Romania^(6.). 

     This assertion by Enăchiuc is not based on any evidence (n. a. or, at least, she did not quote any evidence), therefore it can simply be disregarded.

     Enăchiuc considers that the miniatures represent events from an ongoing war. However, according to Sebastian Stănculescu, the text of the Enăchiuc translation is in disagreement with the miniatures from the 16^th century manuscript of the Rohonczi Codex. All the drawings from the Rohonczi Codex, except those from pages 76a, 90a, 145a, 199, 210a, 224a, which do not include human characters, do not represent a war. This invalidates Enăchiuc's perspective. Rather, the miniatures are medieval representations of religious scenes, in which the people are inspired, assisted or dominated by winged anthropomorphic apparitions (angels). Good examples are the miniatures from pages 5, 5a, 16a, 55a, 60a, 127, 133a, 167, 187a and 199a. Also, there are frequent representations of a crucifixion, on pages 26, 49, 148 and 153a (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., pp. 4-5).

     Stănculescu rightly points out that, when studying an unknown historical manuscript, an analysis of the images can give real clues regarding the content. Therefore, the fact that the Enăchiuc translation is in complete opposition to the religious nature of most of the illustrations raises important questions about the quality of the translation. (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., p. 5).

     Furthermore, the low quality of the miniatures raises questions about the period when the Rohonczi Codex was created. The 16^th century was a period in which artisans such as Leonardo da Vinci, who also practiced mirror writing, from left to right, had developed a highly refined art of miniatures for religious manuscripts and prayer books (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., p. 4). By contrast, the miniatures from the supposed 16^th century copy of the Rohonczi Codex  have a very simplistic and „primitive” aspect, that seems to lack the artistical skill and the elaborate ornamentation specific to this era. This is rather curious fact, since contemporary copyists, like those from the courts of Stephen the Great of Moldova or Matei Corvinus of Hungary had already attained a high level of sophistication (see ***, Nu trageți în ambulanță (Do not shoot the ambulance)…, pp. 74-76).

      The landscapes from pages 14a, 25a, 65 and others, which are drawn using small points, seem to suggest the technique of xylography, which preceded the introduction of the printing press in the 1450s. Since they would have been printed later on paper, the points were used to avoid staining the pages by applying too much ink. Therefore, some details from the landscapes were suggested through dotted lines, that were made in a wooden matrix through a xylographic technique. According to Sebastian Stănculescu, if this hypothesis was accepted, then writing from left to right would be justified, as it would indicate an ink copy from wooden matrixes that the copyist did not understand, because he did not know the xylographic technique for which the matrixes had been made (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., p. 5).

     The monasteries from the valleys of the mountains can be identified, according to Enăchiuc, with the cave church from Corbi, Argeș county, Romania, or with the monastery complex from Buzău Mountains, with beginnings that date, according to Enăchiuc, from the 9^th-10^th century^(6.).

     The iconography includes many non-Christian representations of the old cult of the Sun. Enăchiuc believed that this coexistence between a pre-Christian cult and Christianity also appeared in the iconography present  in cave churches from Cappadocia, in Anatolia, dating from the 11^th-13^th centuries^(7.).

     In Enăchiuc's opinion, the fact that the baptism is mentioned in the Rohonczi Codex only for newly born children, but not for adults, proves that the information in the Codex is about a sedentary population which was already Christian^(7.).

     The miniatures that include representations of astrolabes are the 39^th, 40^th and 41^st miniatures from the Rohonczi Codex. According to the researcher Viorica Enăchiuc^(23.), the first miniature (the 39^th) depicting an astrolabe refers to an instrument that would have been used by the Vlachs^(23.) in order to measure the height of the stars above the horizon and to calculate the Moon and Sun eclipses^(25.). 

     Regarding the second depiction of an astronomical instrument, Viorica Enăchiuc^(23.) considers that it represents an astrolabe along with the cosmogonic representation of a total Sun eclipse, which would have been observed in the year 1.090 A. D. from the region of the Lower Danube, during a supposed military expedition of the emperor Alexie I Comnen, against the Pechenegs. Alexie I Comnen's military expedition from 1.090 A. D. was mentioned by the Byzantine princess Ana Comnena^(26.).

     Enăchiuc^(23.) considers that the third depiction is of an astrolabe used for calculations regarding the solar year and the seasons of the year.

     The idea proposed by Enăchiuc that an astrolabe would have been used by the Vlachs for astrological/astronomical calculations^(23.) should in no way be considered historical fact. There are two reasons why this is so. First of all, in her translation of the Rohonczi Codex, Viorica Enăchiuc does not provide any evidence to support this assertion. To the author`s credit, in her translation she does provide black and white copies of the miniatures from the original Rohonczi Codex. While these copies are a good addition to the translation, their presence does not offer sufficient evidence to support Enăchiuc`s idea that the Vlachs used an astrolabe to perform astronomical/astrological determinations.

     The second reason why Enăchiuc`s idea should not be seen as historically accurate is the fact that the historical bibliography regarding the vlachs does not provide sufficient corroborating evidence about the usage of astronomical/astrological instruments (and certainly not in the 10th-12th century, which is the era that is supposedly „described” by the Rohonczi Codex). Therefore, this idea proposed by Enăchiuc should be considered historically inaccurate and should not be taken seriously. The only way in which this idea might ever be validated is if much stronger evidence was discovered in the future.

     Sebastian Stănculescu's arguments regarding the falsity of the Enăchiuc transliteration of the Rohonczi Codex

     In an article with the title Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi (Contributions to the study of the Rohonczi Codex) (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., p. 1), Sebastian Stănculescu attempted to accomplish two goals: 1. to make a scholarly critique of the Enăchiuc transliteration; 2. to propose new principles for the future research of the manuscript of the Rohonczi Codex.

     Starting from a simple observation of the pagination, and including various problems specific to paleography, such as the different, seemingly random, reading of identical groups of signs, located in identical contexts, Stănculescu argued that, from a paleographic perspective, the Enăchiuc transliteration is a fake. Also, other researchers specialized in the Latin language considered that Enăchiuc's translation of the supposed Danubian Latin in which the Rohonczi Codex would have been written is actually fake (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., p. 1).

     Sebastian Stănculescu proposed, based on his own study of the manuscript of the Rohonczi Codex, different methods for future studies, starting from the characters that can be given phonetic values with a higher degree of certitude, due to their association with canonized abbreviations from the old Christian iconography (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., p. 1).

     Due to a paleographic curiosity, Sebastian Stănculescu became interested in the manuscript of the Rohonczi Codex in the year 2002, when the Enăchiuc transliteration was published. Since the Enăchiuc transliteration had a mixed reception in the Romanian press, with many divergent and controversial reactions, both in support and in opposition to the Enăchiuc transliteration, Sebastian Stănculescu chose the classical method for studying an unknown historical writing (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., p. 3).      

     By using this method, Stănculescu chose to make abstraction of the older research regarding the Rohonczi Codex. As a result, Stănculescu discovered many issues of the Enăchiuc transliteration, which nullify her attempt to translate the Rohonczi Codex (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., p. 3).

     As a first stage, Sebastian Stănculescu copied each page of the Rohonczi Codex, in order to become familiar with the writing, to observe and to classify the type of letters used. Stănculescu observed that there were at least two copyists, or, if there was only one copyist, then there must have been a difference of a few years between the copying of the first part of the Rohonczi Codex manuscript and the copying of the second part (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., pp. 3-4).

     Beginning with sheet 63 of the Rohonczi Codex the writing becomes rarer and straighter, while also gaining a more ordered character. While copying some letters, there appear new ways of writing, as can be observed on page 1 / sheet 1, page 223a / sheet 112 and page 224a / sheet 112, based on the numbering applied on the Rohonczi Codex by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. In the second writing style, the letters have a new inclination and they are started differently (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., p. 4).

     In any writing system with a long tradition of practical application, certain reflexes and manners regarding the writing of letters are established. Changes in the writing of letters, given the writing from right to left, as is the case of the Rohonczi Codex, betray an uncertain mastery of the type of letters used after sheet 63 of the Codex. By copying the manuscript of the Rohonczi Codex, Sebastian Stănculescu understood that, after a large number of pages, the writing from right to left ceases to be a problem in itself, but, in the case of the copyist who wrote sheets 63-113, there still persists a tendency to start the letters from left to right, contrary to the general writing direction (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., p. 4).

     The order of the pages, as established in the Enăchiuc version of the Rohonczi Codex, is considered doubtful by Sebastian Stănculescu. This order seems to be negated by the form of the pages, which is blunted or torn. According to Stănculescu, in the Enăchiuc version, a large number of pages were torn from notebooks, and then added randomly within the covers of the Enăchiuc transliteration. Stănculescu cut out the pages from the Enăchiuc transliteration containing copies of the microfilms of the Rohonczi Codex manuscript, thus discovering a different overlap of the edges of the sheets. For exemple, at a superficial examination, page 225 is paired with page 224, due to a perforation. However, a more detailed examination revealed that 1/5 of the manuscript was cross referenced. Because of this, the continuation of words or ideas on the next pages must have created difficulties for the translator, but Enăchiuc does not mention any of this, even tough she should have done so (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., p. 4).

     Stănculescu goes on to underline that the middle of the manuscript follows the correct order of pages, between pages 25 and 215a. According to Stănculescu, in the Enăchiuc transliteration, as opposed to the microfilms of the 16th century manuscript of the Rohonczi Codex, the same kind of incorrect order is encountered in the pages 1-25 and 215a-225. As further examples, Stănculescu mentioned page 219a / sheet 110, which was the verso for page 218 / sheet 109, and page 1 / sheet 1, which was the verso of page 2a / sheet 1 (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., p. 4).

     Based on the agglomeration of writing on sheets 62-1, and taking into account the writing from right to left, Sebastian Stănculescu launched the hypothesis that the 16^th century manuscript of the Rohonczi Codex should be read like all the other texts written from right to left, namely from the last page to the first. Thus, the method used by Enăchiuc, starting from the first page to the last, would be wrong. Also, when establishing the order of the pages taken from the Codex, Enăchiuc should have paid closer attention to microfilms, assuming that a comparison with the original manuscript from Budapest would not have been possible (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., p. 4).

     Sebastian Stănculescu considers that the Enăchiuc transliteration cannot be considered a translation of the Rohonczi Codex. Therefore, it is impossible to discuss the historical implications of a document whose reading raises many significative issues. Viorica Enăchiuc did not consider the paleographical problems of studying an unknown document, written in an unknown language, having enthusiastically launched herself in the translation of the text starting soon after receivingthe microfilmed copy of the manuscript of the Rohonczi Codex in the 1980s (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., pp. 5-6).

     Viorica Enăchiuc did not take the necessary reservations and precautions inherent to any objective scientific research, especially one of such complexity and difficulty. Stănculescu reminds us of the example of J. F. Champollion, as well as other trailblazers from the 19^th century, which, did not just produce pertinent translations, but also proceeded to explain the advantages and limitations of their own methods. On the other hand, Enăchiuc never provided a table with the proposed transliteration (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., pp. 5-6).

     After he finished to manually copy the manuscript of the Rohonczi Codex, Stănculescu mentions that he became familiar with the elaboration of the Codex and the different contexts in which the signs appear in the writing of the Codex. Wishing to understand the system used by Enăchiuc, Stănculescu verified two pages, from the first and the second book of the manuscript. Afterwards, Stănculescu verified the results, on a number of samples of transliterations (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., p. 6).

     According to Stănculescu, when studying a manuscript with an unknown system for notation of sounds and an unknown language is to avoid too many assumptions. Any metatheses (n. a. changes in the place of a sound/letter within a word) or other phonetic accidents can only be assumed when the language is well known and the phonetic modifications have been studied in advance. Stănculescu was of the opinion that there are many examples where the Enăchiuc version of the Rohonczi Codex failed to reach this standard (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., p. 6).

     As such, Stănculescu reached the conclusion that the unstable assumptions made by Enăchiuc are scientifically unjustified, due to the fact that her reading of the Rohonczi Codex disregards the order of the pages of the 16th century manuscript, while also having no relation with strictly religious and Christian subjects of the miniatures (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., p. 6).

     After observing the methodological error and the unjustified assumptions made by Viorica Enăchiuc, Sebastian Stănculescu tried to create a new method to study the Rohonczi Codex. Since the Codex uses at least 150 signs, there are two posibilities: 1. a part of the signs might represent syllables, as in the case of the Cretan or Iberian syllabaries  (n. a. a syllabary is a set of written symbols, similar to an alphabet, in which each symbol is a syllable); 2. the writing of the Rohonczi Codex might use consonantal ligatures, such as the Sanskrit writing. Stănculescu was of the opinion that the ideographic variant should be excluded, since no ideographic writing was used in Europe during the Middle Ages. Since he was unable to make stable assumptions about the phonetic identification of most of the signs, Stănculescu concentrated on the characters that accompanied religious images, since these letters could be recognized by comparison with other scenes from Christian medieval iconography (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., pp. 6-7).

     The method proposed by Sebastian Stănculescu for the study of the Rohonczi Codex did not yield any practical results, due to the big number of signs used in the manuscript. According to Stănculescu, it would have taken decades of work for the method to be successful. Due to it's difficulty, the text of the Rohonczi Codex was approached with much reticence by many researchers, who mistakenly believed that the most difficult part, namely the transliteration, had been successfully accomplished by Viorica Enăchiuc, a specialist in paleography. However, any authentic scientific research requires a verification of the primary sources. His desire to understand the transliteration method used by Enăchiuc led Stănculescu to the conclusion that the Enăchiuc transliteration is false (see Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., p. 7).

     Conclusion

     In conclusion, none of the translations of the Rohonczi Codex can be trusted. Furthermore, the Rohonczi Codex itself is a historical fake, not a real historical document.

     Notes and References

     (1.) Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex. Descifrare, transcriere și traducere. Déchiffrement, transcription et traduction (Deciphering, transcription and translation), București, ALCOR EDIMPEX SRL, 2002,  pp. VII, 545, 543-551.

     (2.) Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex..., p. VII.

     (3.) A Hungarian version of the text can be found at the adress https://ro.scribd.com/document/83501020/Nemeti-Kalman-Rohonczi-kodex-tantetel-1892#, consulted on 28^th December 2022.

     (4.) Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex..., p. VII.

     (5.) See Ottó Gyürk, Megfejthető-e a Rohonci-kódex? (Can the Rohonc Codex Be Solved?), in Élet és Tudomány (in Hungarian), vol. 25, 1970, pp. 1923–1928, apud Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex..., p. VII.

     (6.) Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex..., p. VIII.

     (7.) Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex..., p. IX.

     (8.). Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex..., p. X.

     (9.). Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex..., p. XI.

     (10.). Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex..., pp. XII, 563-653.

     (11.). Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex..., pp. 418-426.

     (12.). Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex..., p. XII.

     (13.). The scientific reports can be found in Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex..., pp. 543-556.

     (14.). Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex..., p. XIII.

     (15.). Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex..., pp. XII-XIII.

     (16.). Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex..., p. 545.

     (17.). Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex..., pp. XIII-XIV.

     (18.) Gheorghe Ciobanu, Referate de specialitate privind rezultatele cercetării prof. Viorica Enăchiuc, în descifrarea Codexului Rohonczi și importanța publicării lor pentru cunoașterea istoriei și a literaturii românilor din secolele XI-XII (I) (Scientific reports regarding the results of the research of professor Viorica Enăchiuc, in desciphering the Rohonczi Codex, and the importance of their publication for the knowledge of Romanian history and literature from XI-XII (I)), in Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex...,  pp. 543-551.

     (19.). Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex..., p. XIV.

     (20.). Gheorghe Ciobanu, Referate de specialitate privind rezultatele cercetării prof. Viorica Enăchiuc, în descifrarea Codexului Rohonczi și importanța publicării lor pentru cunoașterea istoriei și a literaturii românilor din secolele XI-XII (I) (Scientific reports regarding the results of the research of professor Viorica Enăchiuc, in desciphering the Rohonczi Codex, and the importance of their publication for the knowledge of Romanian history and literature from XI-XII (I)), in Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex...,  pp. 543-551.

     (21.). For more information about Gheorghe Ciobanu`s historical research regarding Byzantine and Gregorian music, see Gh. Ciobanu, Marin Ionescu, Titus Moisescu, Școala muzicală de la Putna. Antologhion, București, 1980.

     (22.). For the definition of an astrolabe, see https://www.britannica.com/science/astrolabe-instrument, consulted 24^th December 2022.

     (23.). Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex...,  pp. XI, 164-169.

     (24.). Vlach is an ethnonym which was used historically to designate (neo)latin populations from Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, that lived on both sides of the Carpathian Mountains, the Danube river and the Pruth River. Among the neo-latin populations designated historically as Vlachs were included the modern Romanians (Daco-Romanians from North of the Danube), Vlachs from the South of the Danube, such as Aromanians, Macedo-Romanians / Megleno-Romanians and Istro-Romanians, as well as other Romance-speaking populations from the same geographic region of Europe. 

     (25.). Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex...,  p. VIII.

     (26.) Ana Comnena, The Alexiad, in „Fontes Historiae Daco-Romane”, vol. III, 1975, p. 99.

     (27.). Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex...,  p. 546.

     (28.). Ariton Vraciu, Referate de specialitate privind rezultatele cercetării prof. Viorica Enăchiuc, în descifrarea Codexului Rohonczi și importanța publicării lor pentru cunoașterea istoriei și a literaturii românilor din secolele XI-XII (II) (Scientific reports regarding the results of the research of professor Viorica Enăchiuc, in desciphering the Rohonczi Codex, and the importance of their publication for the knowledge of Romanian history and literature from XI-XII (II)), in Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex...,  pp. 552-553.

     (29.). Ioan C. Chițimia, Referate de specialitate privind rezultatele cercetării prof. Viorica Enăchiuc, în descifrarea Codexului Rohonczi și importanța publicării lor pentru cunoașterea istoriei și a literaturii românilor din secolele XI-XII (III) (Scientific reports regarding the results of the research of professor Viorica Enăchiuc, in desciphering the Rohonczi Codex, and the importance of their publication for the knowledge of Romanian history and literature from XI-XII (III)), in Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex...,  p. 553.

     (30.). Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex..., version française, p. 655.

     (31.). Peter R. Petrucci, Slavic Features in the History of Romanian, LINCOM Europa, München, 1999, p. 4. 

     (32.). Gabriela Pană-Dindelegan (editor), The Grammar of Romanian, Oxford University Press, 2013, p. 2.

     (33.). Marius Sala, Romanian, in „Revue belge de Philologie et d'Histoire”, vol. 88, nr. 3, 2010, p. 842.

     (34.). Al. Rosetti, Istoria limbii române (The history of the Romanian language), vol. I, De la origini până la începutul secolului al XVII-lea (From the origins to the beginning of the XVII^th century), Editura științifică și enciclopedică, București, 1986, p. 323.

     (35.). Gabriela Pană-Dindelegan (editor), The Grammar of Romanian, Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 2-3.

Bibliography

I. Primary Sources:

I. 1. Viorica Enăchiuc, Rohonczi Codex. Descifrare, transcriere și traducere. Déchiffrement, transcription et traduction (Deciphering, transcription and translation), ALCOR EDIMPEX SRL, București,  2002.

I. 2. Viorica Enăchiuc-Mihai, Cercetări preliminare asupra Codex-ului Rohonczi, in „Anale de istorie”, year XXIX, no. 6, 1983, pp. 104-116.

II. Secondary Literature:

II. 1. Peter R. Petrucci, Slavic Features in the History of Romanian, LINCOM Europa, München, 1999.

II. 2. Gabriela Pană-Dindelegan (editor), The Grammar of Romanian, Oxford University Press, 2013.

II. 3. Marius Sala, Romanian, in „Revue belge de Philologie et d'Histoire”, vol. 88, nr. 3, 2010, pp. 841-872.

II. 4. Al. Rosetti, Istoria limbii române (The history of the Romanian language), vol. I, De la origini până la începutul secolului al XVII-lea (From the origins to the beginning of the XVII^th century), Editura științifică și enciclopedică, București, 1986.

II. 5. Ion Oprescu, Voci din public, in „România literară”, year XXXVI, no. 19, 14-20 may 2003, p. 30.

III. 6. ***, Nu trageți în ambulanță (Do not shoot the ambulance), in „Vatra”, year XXX, no. 4-5, april 2003, pp. 74-76.

III. 7. Mihai Rădulescu, Un codex cu năbădăi (A restless codex), in „Contemporanul. Ideea europeană” („The Contemporary. The European idea”), year XVII, no. 2 (647), february 2006, p. 34. 

III. 8. Augustin Deac, Codex Rohonczy, pp. 1-20, article available at https://www.voci.ro/wp-content/uploads/codex.pdf, consulted on 17^th February 2023.

III. 9. Sebastian Stănculescu, Contribuții la studiul Codex Rohonczi..., http://sebastianstanculescu.ro/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Codex-Rohonczi-Sebastian-Stanculescu.pdf, consulted on 20^th February 2023.

Studies published by Viorica Enăchiuc

1. Noi puncte arheologice pe harta județului Botoșani (New archeological points on the map of Botoșani County), in „Materiale și Cercetări Arheologice” („Archeological Materials and Research”), vol. IX, 1970, p. 417.

2. O coloană neolitică inedită descoperită la Schela Cladovei - Drobeta Turnu Severin (A new neolithic column discovered at Schela Cladovei - Drobeta Turnu Severin), in „Buletin de Informare pentru Cadrele Didactice” („Bulletin of Information for teachers”), 1973, pp. 11-14.

3. Obiecte de podoabă și artă geto-dacică descoperite pe teritoriul Olteniei (Geto-Dacian objects of jewelry and art discovered on the territory of Oltenia), in „Buletin de Informare pentru Cadrele Didactice” („Bulletin of Information for teachers”), 1973, pp. 26-50.

4. Agricultura și vegetația silvică în comuna primitivă pe teritoriul României, cu privire specială la Oltenia și Banat (Agriculture and silvic vegetation in the primitive commune, regarding especially Oltenia and Banat), in „Buletin de Informare pentru Cadrele Didactice” („Bulletin of Information for teachers”), 1973, pp. 1-12.

5. Sur l'origine et développement  de la civilisation de Harappa dans la lumière du déchiffrage de certaines inscriptions découvertes au Mohenjodaro et Harappa (About the origin and development of the civilisation of Harappa in the light of the desciphering of some inscriptions discovered at Mohenjodaro and Harappa), communication presenté au IX Congres Internationale des Sciences Prehistorique et Protohistorique (communication presented at the IX^th International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences), Nice, 1976.

6. Descoperiri arheologice în județul Ilfov (Archeological discoveries in Ilfov county), in „Ilfov - File de Istorie” („Ilfov - Pages of History”), 1978, pp. 57-72.

7. Puncte de vedere privind scrierea dacilor (Points of view about the writing of the Dacians), in „Anale de Istorie” („Annals of History”), year XXV, 1979, pp. 95-129.

8. L'écriture et la langue des geto-daces (The writing and the language of the geto-dacians), in Drither III Internationaler Thraxologescher Kongres zu elvren W. Tomaasscheks, Wien, 1980.

9. Cercetări arheologice pe teritoriul comunei Dridu, punctul „La Metereze” (Archeological research on the territory of the commune of Dridu, „La Metereze” point), in „Revista de Istorie” („The History Magazine”), tome 34, no. 3, 1981, pp. 507-512.

10. Unele date privind viața poporului român în câmpia dunăreană în secolele XI-XIV (Some data regarding the life of the Romanian people in the danubian field in the XI-XIV centuries), in „Anale de Istorie” („Annals of History”), year XXIX, no. 4, 1983, pp. 89-108.

11. Cercetări preliminare asupra Codexului Rohonczi (Preliminary research about the Rohonczi Codex), in „Anale de Istorie” („Annals of History”), year XXIX, no. 6, 1983, pp. 105-106.

12. Cercetările arheologice de la Dridu, „La Metereze”, județul Ialomița, în campaniile 1979-1980 (Archeological research from Dridu, „La Metereze”, Ialomița county, in the field campaign 1979-1980), in „Materiale și cercetări arheologice” („Archeological materials and research”), 1983, pp. 439-445.

13. Depozitul (turnătorie) de bronzuri de la Dridu, județul Ialomița (The Deposit (foundry) of bronzes from Dridu, Ialomița county), in „Traco-Dacica” („Thraco-Dacica”), tome VIII, no. 1-2, pp. 72-91.

14. Der Bronzefund von Dridu, Kr. Ialomitza, in Bronzefunde aus Rumänien Prähistoriche Archäologie in Südostereuropa, Band 10, Seminar für Ur-und Frühgeschichte der Freien Universität Berlin, Wissensehaftsverlog Volker Spiess, Berlin, 1995.

Further reading:

     With a few exceptions, these works were not used in the making of this article, but they are mentioned in the books that were consulted. They are included here because they might be of interest to the readers of this website.

1. ***, Fontes historiae Daco-Romanae, Izvoare privind istoria României (Primary sources regarding Daco-Roman history, Primary sources regarding the history of Romania), Editura Academiei Române, vol. I, București, 1964; vol. II, București, 1970; vol. III, București, 1975; vol. IV, București, 1982.

2. ***, Lumea Bizanțului (The world of Byzantion), Institutul de Studii Istorice Social-politice (Institute of Historical Social-political Studies), Colecția Biblioteca de istorie (The Library of history collection), București, 1972.

3. ***, Mica enciclopedie de istorie universală (Small encyclopedia of universal history), Editura Politică, București, 1988.

4. ***, Studia indoeuropaea ad Daco-romanas pertinentia (Indoeuropean studies pertinent to the Daco-Romans), I, Studii de tracologie (Studies of tracology), redacted by professor PhD. Cicerone Porghirc, Universitatea București, 1976.

5. H. Ahrweiler, La frontiére et les frontière de Byzance en Orient (The border and the borders of Byzantium in the Orient), in Rapports (Reports), vol. II, XIV^e Congrès international des études byzantines (The XIV^th International Congress of byzantine studies), Bucarest, 6th-12th September 1971, Editura Academiei R. S. România, 1971, pp. 7-20.

6. Gh. Anghel, Ion Berciu, Cetăți medievale din sud-vestul Transilvaniei (Piatra Craiului, Tăuți, Vurpăr și Stremț) (), Editura Meridiane, 1968. 

7. I. N. Barbu, Sintaxa limbii latine după metoda istorico-stilistică (Syntax of the Latin language after the historical-stylistic method), ediția a II-a revăzută și adăugită (second revised and extended edition), București, 1947.

8. Mariana Băluță-Skultely, Poezia epigramatică elină. Limbajul artistic și epigramele lui Calimah. Probleme de stil și versificație (Ancient Greek epigrammatic poetry. Artistic language and Calimah's epigrammes. Problems of style and versification), Universitatea București, 1989.

9. Emile Benveniste, Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européenes (The vocabulary of Indo-European institutions),   vol. I économie, parenté, société (economy, family, society);  vol. II. pouvoir, droit, religion (power, law, religion), Paris, 1969.

10. Gh. Bichir, Cultura Carpică (Carpic culture), Editura Academiei  R.S.R., București, 1973, planches LXXXVIII, 3; CXVII, 1; CXLIII, 3; CLI, 3; CXXII, 3; CXXIII, 6; CLI, 1, 3; CLII, 2, 4; CLIII, 5.

11. Yves Bonnefoy, La Chanson de Roland (The Song of Roland), édition bilingue suivie de Les Mots et la  parole dans le „Rolands” (bilingual edition based on The Words and the Watchword in the „Rolands”), Union Generale d'Editions, 1968, et pour le text en vieux français (and for the true French text), Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1965.

12. Gheorghe I. Brăteanu, Tradiția istorică despre întemeierea statelor românești (The historical tradition about the founding of the Romanian states), Editura Eminescu, ediție îngrijită de Valeriu Rîpeanu, 1980.

13. Stelian Brezeanu, O istorie a Imperiului Bizantin (A history of the Byzantine Empire), Editura Albatros, București, 1981.

14. A. R. Budagov, Introducere în știința limbii (Introduction to the science of the language), Editura Științifică, București, 1961.

15. T. T. Burada, Despre crestăturile plutașilor pe cherestele și alte semne doveditoare de proprietate la români (About the notches on the wood pieces and other signs that prove the propriety of the Romanians), Opere IV. Folclor și etnografie (Complete works IV. Folklore and ethnography), Ediție îngrijită de Viorel Cozma (Edition curated by Viorel Cozma), București, 1980, pp. 83-86.

16. Teodor D. Buraga, Despre crestăturile pe droburile de sare la Marginea (About the notches on the drubs of salt at Marginea), in „Revista pentru istorie, arheologie și filologie” („The Magasine for history, archeology and philology”), year III, vol. V, issue 1, p. 174.

17. René Cagnat, Cours d'épigraphie latine (Manual of Latin epigraphy), Paris, 1898.

18. I. George Capitanovici, Discuțiuni istorice (Historical discussions), vol. I, București, 1895.

19. N. Cartojan, Istoria literaturii române vechi (History of old Romanian literature), Editura Minerva, 1980.

20. Jean Chevalier, Alain Gheerbent, Dictionaire des symbols - mythes, reves, coutumes, gestes, formes, figures, couleurs, nombres (Dictionary of symbols, myths, dreams, customs, gestures, forms, figures, colors, numbers), Paris, 1973.

21. Ștefan Ciobanu, Istoria literaturii române vechi (History of old Romanian literature), Editura Eminescu, București, 1989.

22. Gheorghe Ciobanu, Studii de etnomuzicologie și bizantinologie (Studies of ethnomusicology and Byzantinology), vol. III, Editura muzicală, București, 1992.

23. Eugen Cizek, Dan Slușanschi, Mariana Băluță, Romano-Dacica (Roman-Dacian), vol. I, Izvoarele antice ale istoriei României (Ancient sources for the history of Romania), Universitatea București, 1986.

24. Maria Comșa, Cultura materială veche românească. Așezările de la Bucov (Old Romanian material culture. The settlements from Bucov), Editura Academiei R. S. România, București, 1978.

25. Maria Comșa, Die Bulgarische herrschaft nördlich der Donau, in „Dacia”, year IV, 1960, pp. 31-52.

26. N. Constantinescu, Curtea de Argeș, 1200-1400. Asupra începuturilor Țării Românești (Curtea de Argeș monastery, 1200-1400. About the beginnings of the Romanian Country), Editura Academiei R. S. România, 1984.

27. Ion Coteanu, Structura și evoluția limbii române, de la origini până la 1860 (Structure and evolution of the Romanian language from the origins to 1860), Editura Academiei R. S. România, București, 1981.

28. Ion Coteanu, Marius Sala, Etimologia și limba română (Etymology and the Romanian language), Editura Academiei R. S. România, București, 1981.

29. C. Daicoviciu, Em. Petrovici, Gh. Ștefan, La formation du peuple roumain et sa langue (The formation of the Romanian people and it's language), Editura Academiei R. S. România, 1984.

30. Ovid Densușianu, Opere (Complete works), vol. I, Lingvistica (Linguistics), ediție îngrijită de B. Cazacu, V. Rusu și I. Șerb, Editura pentru literatură, București, 1968; vol. II, Lingvistica. Histoire de la langue roumaine (Linguistics. History of the Romanian language), Editura Minerva, București, 1975.

31. Mihail Diaconescu, Istoria literaturii dacoromane (The history of Dacoroman literature), Editura Alcor Edimpex, București, 1999.

32. Petre Diaconu, Silvia Baraschi, Păcuiul lui Soare. Așezarea medievală din secolele XIII-XV (Păcuiul lui Soare archeological site. The medieval settlement from the XIII-XV centuries), vol. II, Academia R. S. România, București, 1977.

33. Petre Diaconu, Dumitru Vîlceanu, Păcuiul lui Soare. Cetatea bizantină (Păcuiul lui Soare archeological site. The byzantine citadel), vol. I, Editura Academiei R. S. România, București, 1972.

34. Florica Dimitrescu, Introducere în fonetica istorică a limbii române (Introduction to the historical phonetics of the Romanian language), Editura Științifică, București, 1967.

35. Ovidiu Drimba, Istoria culturii și civilizației (The history of culture and civilisation), vol. II, Editura științifică și enciclopedică, București, 1987.

36. Georges Duby, Robert Mantran, L'Eurasie XI^e-XII^e siècles (Eurasia. The XI-XII centuries), Presses Universitaires de France (Universitary Presses from France), Paris, 1982.

37. Hortensia Dumitrescu, Antromorfnîe izobrajeniia na sosudah iz Traiana, în „Dacia”, year IV, 1960, pp. 31-52.

38.. I. Dumitru-Snagov, Un alfabet local cu mult înaintea celui chirilic; noi probe de limbă, scriere și cultură daco-romană (A local alphabet long before the Cyrillic one; new evidence regarding the Dacian-roman language, writing and culture), în „Contemporanul” („The contemporary magasine”), nr. 52 (2.041), 27^th december 1885, p. 11.
39. Nicolae Dunăre, Ornamentica tradițională comparată (Compared traditional ornamentics), Editura Meridiane, București, 1979, pp. 66-71, 97-119.

40. Nicolae Dunăre, Arta populară din valea Jiului (Folk art from the Jiu Valley), Editura Academiei R.S.R., București, 1967, pp. 97-114.

41. Viorica Enăchiuc, Așezarea întărită de la Metereze (The fortified settlement from Metereze), în „Magazin istoric” („Historical Magazine”), year XV, no. 2 (167), february 1981, pp. 30-32.

42. Viorica Enăchiuc, Cercetări preliminare asupra „Codexului Rohonczi” (Preliminary research about the „Rohonczi Codex”), în „Anale de istorie” („Annals of history”), year XXIX, no. 6, 1983, pp. 105-116.

43. Viorica Enăchiuc, Cercetările arheologice de la Dridu - „La Metereze” (jud. Ialomița), 1979-1980 (The archeological researches from Dridu - „La Metereze” (Ialomița County), 1979-1980), în „Materiale și cercetări arheologice” („Archeological materials and research”), a XV-a Sesiune anuală de rapoarte (the XV^th Yearly session of reports), București, 1983.

44. Viorica Enăchiuc, Cercetările arheologice pe teritoriul comunei Dridu, punctul „La Metereze” (Archeological research on the territory of Dridu commune, „La Metereze” point), în „Revista de istorie” („The history magazine”), tome 34, no. 3, 1981, pp. 507-512.

45. Viorica Enăchiuc, Puncte de vedere privind scrierea dacilor (Points of view regarding the writing of the Dacians), in „Anale de istorie” („Annals of history”), anul XXV, 1979, pp. 95-129.

46. Vioarica Enăchiuc, Unele date privind viața poporului român în Câmpia Munteniei în secolele XI-XIV (Some data regarding the life of the Romanian people in the Field of Muntenia), în „Anale de istorie” („Annals of history”), year XXIX, no. 4, 1983, pp. 89-108.

47. Viorica Enăchiuc, Săpăturile arheologice de salvare întreprinse la Dridu, punctul „La Metereze”, în anii 1979-1983. Studiu monografic (Archeological salvation digs undertaken at Dridu, „La Metereze” point, in the years 1979-1983. Monographical study), Mss., 183 pages and 341 planches.

48. Jean Frappier, La chansons de geste de cycle de Guillaume d'Oranje (Heroic songs from the cycle of Guillaume d'Oranje), Paris, 1955.

49. Firdusi, Cartea regilor, Vitejiile lui Rustem (The book of kings, The brave deeds of Rustem), trad. de Romulus Dinu, Editura Uranus, București, 1992.

50. I. Fischer, Morfologia istorică a limbii latine (Historical morphology of the Latin language), Universitatea București, 1985.

51. I. Fischer, Latina Dunăreană (Danubian Latin), Editura științifică și enciclopedică, București, 1985.

54. Robert Fossier, Le Moyen Age. L'éveil de l'Europe. 950-1250 (The Middle Ages. The awakening of Europe. 950-1250), vol. II, Paris, 1982.

55. Ladislau Gáldi, Introducere în istoria versului românesc (Introduction in the history of Romanian versification), Editura Minerva, București, 1971.

56. Alexandru Georgescu, Byzance et les institutions roumaines jusqu'a la fin du XV^e siècle (Byzantium and the Romanian institutions at the end of the XV^th century), in Rapports (Reports), vol. IV, XIV^e Congres international des études byzantines (The XIV^th International Congress of byzantine studies), Bucarest, 1971, pp. 49-80.

57. Le Gentil Pierre, La littérature française du moyen âge (The French literature of the Middle Age), Paris, 1968.

58. Ion Gheție, Introducere în studiul limbii române literare (Introduction in the study of the Romanian literary language), Editura științifică și enciclopedică, București, 1982.

59. Ion Gheție, Alexandru Mareș, Originile scrisului în limba română (Origins of writing in the Romanian language), Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică, București, 1985.

60. Clare Gibson, Semne & Simboluri. Ghid Ilustrat. Semnificații și origini (Signs & Symbols: An Illustrated Guide to Their Origins and Meanings), Editura Aquila, Oradea, 1998.

61. Maria Gimbutas, Old Europe c. 7000-3500 BC: The Earliest European civilization before the infiltration of the indo-european peoples, in „The Journal of Indo-European Studies”, vol. I, number I, spring 1973, pp. 1-20.

62. Anca Giurescu, Elemente de morfosintaxă romanică (Elements of romanic morphosyntax), Universitatea București, 1982.

63. André Grabar, Les voies de la création en iconographie chrétienne a antiquité et moyen âge (Immages of the creation in Christian iconography in the antiquity and the middle ages), Paris, 1979-1994.

64. Alexandru Graur, Limba literară (The literary language), Editura științifică și enciclopedică, București, 1979.

65. Alexandru Graur, Studii de lingvistică generală (Studies of general linguistics), varianta nouă, Editura Academiei R. S. România, 1960.

66. Gavril Istrati, Originea limbii române literare (The origin of the Romanian literary language), Editura Junimea, Iași, 1981.

67. B. P. Hașdeu, Istoria critică a românilor (The critical history of Romanians), cu studii introductive de (with introductive studies by) Grigore Brâncuși și Manole Neagoe, Editura Minerva, București, 1984, pp. 545-563.

68. ***, Chronik der Hunnen, in Kovachich, Sammlung kleiner noch ungedruckter Stücke, Ofen, 1805, tomul I, pp. 1-94.

69. Zvonimir Kulundžić, Historija Pisma, Zagreb, 1957, pp. 508-738.

70. André Mary, La fleur de la poésie française depuis les origines jusqu'a la fin du XV^e siècle (The flower of the French poetry from the origins to the end of the 15^th century), pp. 1-459.

71. D. Mircea Matei, Emil I. Emandi, Habitatul medieval rural din Valea Moldovei și din Bazinul Someșului Mare, secolele XI-XVII (Rural medieval living environment from the Valley of Moldova river and from the Basin of the Big Someș River, XI-XVII centuries), Editura Academiei R. S. România, București, 1982.

72. Jean Mathieu-Rosay, Dictionnaire etymologique (Etymological Dictionary), Belgique, 1985.

73. Haralambie Mihăescu, La langue latine dans le sud-est de l'Europe (The Latin language in the South-East of Europe), Editura Academiei R. S. România, București, 1978.

74. R. I. Mircea, Relations littéraires entre Byzance et les Pays Roumains (Literary relations between Byzantium and the Romanian countries), în Rapports (Reports), vol. IV, XIV^e Congres international des études byzantines (The XIV^th International Congress of byzantine studies), Bucarest, 1971, pp. 81-92.

75. Ștefan Munteanu, Vasile D. Târa, Istoria limbii române literare (The history of the Romanian literary language), Editura didactică și pedagogică, București, 1978.

76. A. M. Musicescu, Relations artistique roumano-byzantines (IV^e-XV^e siècle) (Romanian-byzantine artistic relations (IV^th - XV^th century)), Rapports (Reports), vol. IV, XIV^e Congres international des études byzantines (The XIV^th International Congress of byzantine studies), Bucarest, 1971.

77. Ion Nădejde, Amalia Nădejde-Gesticone, Dicționar latin-român (Latin-Romanian dictionary), ediția a III-a, Editura Viața Românească, Iași, 1920.

78. I. Nestor, Contributions archéologiques au probléme des Proto-Roumains. La civilisation de Dridu (Archeological contributions to the problem of the Proto-Romanians. The civilisation of Dridu), în „Dacia”, special number, year II, 1958, pp. 371-372.

79. Nicolaus, Revista di teologica ecumenica-patristica (Magazine of ecumenical-patristic theology), Nuovo serie (New Series), Anno XIX (Year XIX), Fasc. 1-2, 1922.

80. Dardu Nicolaescu-Plopșor, Wanda Wolski, Elemente de demografie și ritual funerar la populațiile vechi din România (v. Necropola birituală de la Ocna Sibiului, sec. VIII-IX; Necropola de incinerație de la Gușterița, sec. VIII) (Elements of demography and funerary ritual at the ancient populations from Romania (v. Biritual necropolis from Ocna Sibiului, VIII-IX century; The incineration necropolis from Gușterița, VIII century)), Editura Academiei R. S. România, 1975, pp. 165-272.

81. Alexandru Niculescu (coordinator), Manual de lingvistică „Latinitate. Romanitate” (Linguistics manual „Latinity. Romanity”), vol. II Latina „vulgară” („Vulgar” Latin), Universitatea București, 1979.

82. Pandele Olteanu, Influența scriitorilor străromâni asupra literaturii slave (The influence of the ur-Romanian writers on the Slavic literature), în „Noi Tracii” („Us, the Thracians”), anul XIX, nr. 186, 1990.

83. Pandele Olteanu, Sintaxa și stilul paleoslavei și slavonei (The syntax and the style of the paleoslavic and slavic language), Editura științifică, București, 1974.

84. P. P. Panaitescu, Introducere la istoria culturii românești (Introduction to the history of the Romanian culture), Editura Științifică, București, 1969.

85. Șerban Papacostea, Românii în secolul al XIII-lea, între cruciadă și imperiul mongol (Romanians in the XIII century, between the Crusade and the Mongol Empire), Editura Enciclopedică, 1993.

86. Tache Papahagi, Din epoca de formațiune a limbii române (From the epoch of the formation of the Romanian language), Editura științifică și enciclopedică, București, 1985.

87. André Parrot, Figurines et céramiques anatoliennes (Anatolian figurines and ceramics), în „Syria”, tom XLVI, 1969, pp. 45-56.

88. Luminița Paștină-Cichindeal, Esthétique et rhétorique dans la poésie lyrique des premiers troubadoures (Esthetics and rhetorics in the lirical poetry of the first troubadoures), Universitatea București, 1986.

89. A. Pertusi, Tra storia e leggenda akritai e ghâzi sulla frontiera orientale di disanzio, in Rapportt, vol. II, pp. 27-70.

90. Mihail Psellos, Cronografia. Un veac de istorie bizantină (976-1077) (Chronography. A century of byzantine history (976-1077)), translation by Radu Alexandrescu, Editura Polirom, Iași, 1998.

91. Alexandry Philippide, Opere alese. Teoria limbii (Chosen works. Theory of language), Editura Academiei R. S. România, 1984.

92. Emilian Popescu, Inscripțiile din secolele IV-XIII descoperite în România (Inscriptions from the 4th - 13th century discovered in Romania), Editura Academiei R. S. România, București, 1976.

93. Sextil Pușcariu, Istoria literaturii române. Epoca veche (The history of the Romanian literature. The ancient epoch), ediție îngrijită de Magdalena Vulpe, Editura Eminescu, București, 1987.

94. L. Quicherat, A. Daveluy, Dictionnaire latin-français (French-Latin Dictionary), Paris, 1884.

95. Sanda Reinheinier-Rîpeanu, Fonetică și fonologie romanică (Romanic phonetics and phonology), vol. III, Universitatea București, 1981.

96. Al. Rosetti, Istoria limbii române (The history of the Romanian language), vol. IV Româna comună (The common Romanian), Editura Științifică, București, 1966.

97. Al. Rosetti, Istoria limbii române (The history of the Romanian language), vol. I, De la origini până la începutul secolului al XVII-lea (From the origins to the beginning of the XVII^th century), Editura științifică și enciclopedică, București, 1986.

98. Al. Rosetti, Aurelian Lăzăroiu, Introducere în fonetică (Introduction in phonetics), Editura științifică și enciclopedică, București, 1982.

99. I. I. Russu, Limba traco-dacilor (The language of the Thraco-Dacians), ediția a II-a revăzută și adăugită, Editura Științifică, București, 1967.

100. I. I. Russu, Die Sprache der Thrako-Daker (The language of the Thraco-Dacians), Editura Științifică, București, 1969.

101. I. I. Russu, Elemente autohtone în limba română. Substratul comun româno-albanez (Autochthonous elements in the Romanian language. The common Romanian-Albanian substratum), Editura Academiei R. S. România, 1970.

102. I. I. Russu, Elemente traco-getice în Imperiul Roman și în Byzantium, în veacurile III-VII (Thracian-getic elements in the Roman Empire and in Byzantion, in the III-VII centuries), Editura Academiei R. S. România, 1976.

103. I. I. Russu, Etnogeneza românilor (The ethnogenesis of the Romanians), Editura științifică și enciclopedică, București, 1981.

104. Marius Sala, Contributions à la phonétique historique du roumain (Contributions to the historical phonetics of the Romanian languages), Editions Klincksieck, Paris, 1976.

105. Marius Sala (coordinator), Vocabularul reprezentativ al limbilor romanice, Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică (Representative vocabulary of Romanic languages), București, 1988.

106. V. V. Sevoroškin, Issledovaniia podešifrovke kariiskih nadpisei, Moskva, 1965.

107. Th. Simenschy, Gh. Ivănescu, Gramatica comparată a limbilor indo-europene (Compared grammar of the Indo-European languages), Editura didactică și pedagogică, București, 1981.

108. Gheorghe Șincai, Opere (Complete works), vol. I, Hronica românilor (Chronicle of the Romanians), tome I, ediție și studiu asupra limbii (edition and study about the language), Florea Fugaru, Editura pentru literatură, 1967.

109. E. Stănescu, Byzance et les Pays Roumains aux IX^e-XV^e siècles (Byzantium and the Romanian countries in the IX-XV centuries), in Rapports (Reports), vol. IV, XIV^e Congres international des études byzantines (The XIV^th International Congress of byzantine studies), București, 1971, pp. 7-48.

110. Felicia Ștef,  Sintaxa condiționalelor limbii eline (Syntax of the conditionals of the ancient Greek language), Universitatea București, 1979.

111. Felicia Ștef, Sintaxa structurală a limbii vechi grecești (Structural syntax of the old Greek language), Universitatea București, 1989.

112. D. I. Ștefănescu, Relation artistique roumano-byzantine. Aperçu genéral (Romanian-byzantine artistical relation. General introduction), in Rapports (Reports), vol. IV, XIV^e Congres international des études byzantines (The XIV^th International Congress of byzantine studies), pp. 93-106.

113. Teofilact Simocata, Istoria bizantină (Byzantine history), translation by H. Mihăescu, Editura Academiei R. S. România, București, 1985.

114. Victor Spinei, Moldova în secolele XI-XIV (Moldova in the XI-XIV centuries), Editura științifică și enciclopedică, București, 1982.

115. Victor Spinei, Relațiile etnice și politice în Moldova meridională în secolele X-XIII. Români și turanici (Ethnic and political relations in meridional Moldova in the X-XIII centuries), Editura Junimea, Iași, 1985.

116. Victor Spinei, Marile migrații din estul și sud-estul Europei în secolele IX-XIII (Great migrations from the east and south-east of Europe in the IX-XIII centuries), Institutul European (European Institute), Colecția Universitaria (Universitaria collection), no. 12, seria istorie  (history series), 1999.

117. Rudolf Steiner, Creștinismul ca fapt mistic și misterele Antichității (Christianity as a mystical fact and the ancient religious mysteries), translation by Petru Moga, Editura Humanitas, București, 1993.

118. Gh. Ștefan, I. Barnea, M. Comșa, Eugen Comșa, Dinogeția (Dinogetia), vol. I, Așezarea feudală timpurie de la Bisericuța Găvan (The early medieval settlement from the little Găvan Church), Editura Academiei R. S. România, București, 1967.

119. O. C. R. P. Syxtus, Notiones Archaeologiae Christianae (Christian archeological notions), vol. I and vol. II, Epigraphia Romae (Roman Epigraphy), MCMIX.

120. Ghizela Sulițeanu, Elemente de continuitate etnologică ale culturii neolitice, Cucuteni-Băiceni, la poporul român (Elements of ethnological continuity of the Cucuteni-Băiceni Neolithic culture to the Romanian people), in „Anuarul Institutului de Cercetări Etnologice și Dialectologice” („Yearbook of the Institute of Ethnological and Dialectological Research”), 1980, pp. 131-150.

121. Carlo Tagliavini, Originile limbilor neolatine (Origins of Neolatin languages), Editura științifică și enciclopedică, București, 1977.

122. Gh. Dan Teodor, Romanitatea carpato-dunăreană și Bizanțul în veacurile V-XI e. n. (Carpatian-Danubian Romanity and Byzantium in the V-XI centuries c. e.), Editura Junimea, Iași, 1981.

123. Gh. Dan Teodor, Continuitatea populației autohtone la est de Carpați în secolele VI-XI (The continuity of the autochtonous population at the east of the Carpathians in the VI-XI centuries), Editura Junimea, Iași, 1984.

124. Răzvan Theodorescu, Bizanț, Balcani, Occident la începuturile culturii medievale românești (secolele X-XIV) (Byzance, Balkans, the Occident at the beginnings of the Romanian medieval culture (X-XIV centuries)), Editura Academiei R. S. România, 1974.

125. G. G. Turćanunov, Piamatniki pis'ma i iazîka narodov Kavkaza i Vostocnoi Evropî, Leningrad, 1971.

126. Em. Vasiliu, Liliana Ionescu-Ruxăndroiu, Limba română în secolele XII-XV, Fonetică, Fonologie, Gramatică (Romanian language in the XII-XV centuries, Phonetics, Phonology, Grammar), Universitatea București, 1986.

127. Nestor Vornicescu, Primele scrieri patristice în literatura noastră, sec. IV-XVI (The first patristic writings in our literature, IV-XVI centuries), Editura Mitropoliei Olteniei, Craiova, 1984.

128. Ariton Vraciu, Limba daco-geților (Language of the Daco-Getians), Editura Facla, Timișoara, 1980.

129. Ariton Vraciu, Studii de lingvistică generală (Studies of general linguistics), Editura Junimea, Iași, 1972.

130. Ariton Vraciu, Lingvistica generală și comparată (General and compared linguistics), Editura didactică și pedagogică, București, 1980.

131. Vatsyayana, Kama Sutra (Kama Sutra), translation from the French version by Simona Surdulescu, Editura Star-Trafic - S. F., Craiova, 1991.

132. Karl Vossler, Din lumea romanică (From the Romanic world), tradanslation by H. R. Radian, Editura Univers, București, 1996.

133. Romulus Vulcănescu, Coloana cerului (The column of the sky), Editura Academiei R.S.R., București, 1977, pp. 201-202.

134. Lucia Wald, Fonetică indo-europeană (Indo-European Phonetics), Universitatea București, 1979.

135. Eugenia Zaharia, Săpăturile de la Dridu. Contribuții la arheologia și istoria perioadei de formare a poporului român (The archeological digs at Dridu. Contributions to the archeology and the history of the period of formation of the Romanian people), Editura Academiei R. S. România, București, 1967.

136. Harald Zimmermann, Veacul întunecat (The dark century), vol. X, translation by Johanna Henning and Anca Mihăilescu, Editura științifică și enciclopedică, București, 1983.

137. Paul Zumtor, Încercare de poetică medievală (An attempt at medieval poetics), translation by Maria Carpov, Editura Univers, București, 1983.