€. 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