€. M, MACROBERT, Observations on the liturgical Psalter SLOVO 70 (2020) was refuted by Hamm, who pointed out textual parallels with manuscripts of the 15th century (HAMM 1953: 118-119). More recent research has produced supplementary evidence in favour of a later dating (BADURINA STIPČEVIĆ 2006: 32; BADURINA STIPČEVIĆ 2009: 12; BADURINA STIPČEVIĆ 2010: 47-49), and this is further supported by the visual appearance of the manuseript: its ornamental initials have analogues from the early 15th century, e.g. at the beginning of the Pašmanski brevijar (ŠTEFANIĆ 1970: plate 27). 1.2. Contents and physical appearance 'The manuscript belongs to a small number of liturgical compendia which combine breviary, missal and ritual: the codices Paris slav, 11 and Kopitar 22 and the 1493 and 1561 printings by Baromić and Brozić (VAJS 1915: 571-574; VAJS 1910: xxxii—xxxvii, xciii<e; VAJS 1948: 39-43, 52-55). Although it has been rebound, and may have lost a folio or folios at the beginning, it is other- wise intact; its 411 folios have apparently not been trimmed, as prickmarks are still visible down some outer edges, and so its dimensions, 15x10.2 cm, are probably original. It is thus comparable in size to the items listed above: Paris slav, 11 measures 11x17 cm, Kopitar 22 18x12 cm, and the two printings are in 16 format (VAJS 1948: 40, 42, 52; GRABAR 1984: 178). The inference that such books were intended for individual use by clerics who had occasion to move from place to place (GRABAR 1984: 159-160) is supported in the case of MS 172 by the page layout and lettering: the columns of writing, which contain 28 lines, measure 8.5x2.5 cm, so each line of lettering is at most 3 mm high, i.e. too small for more than one person to read with ease. Although the manuscript is of modest size, it surely required a significant outlay on the part of the person who commissioned it: the parchment is of good quality, fine, white and polished; the lettering is even and competent, and the frequent deployment of ligatures suggests an experienced scribe; the omamen- tal initials, executed in red and blue, are elaborate, varied and delicate; there are figural inserts on f, Ir and f. 381v, and polychrome decorations with some use of gold on f. 286v, f. 271v, f. 272r and 278r (TADIN 1953: 152). Yet the evidence for actual use of the manuscript is ambiguous. On the one hand it has been read at least once: numerous annotations have been added throughout, sometimes over erasures, more often in the margins, in a different, slightly larger hand and rather paler brown ink. These are mostly minor cor- rections or insertions of missing text, though occasionally the annotator has added a comment, notably on f. 303v to S. John's refutation of the Ebionite heresy. On the other hand, while the parchment is slightly distorted around the outer upper corners, perhaps through damage by water, there is little sign 78