Day (№ 11, ff. 453v-575v), the first of which is John of Damascus’ Sermo
in nativitatem Domini (BHG 1912) (ff. 453v-468v). On 459r beside the be-
ginning of the passage about the murder of King Atalos of the Lacedae- monians by Doriada, sister of King Cassander of Macedonia, is the gloss
Çðý çäý, See here, while on 459v beside Atalos’ consultation of the priest-
ess Euoptia of Delphi is the gloss ïððcђöà ã‚ëåUñå ¶åð´à, a prophetess is called hiereia. This latter gloss is found on 355r in codex 56 in the collection of
Alexander Hilferding (1831-1872) in the Russian National Library, St Petersburg, a panegyricon for the whole year copied in 1509 by two monks
of the monastery of the Dormition at Rila, Mardarius (ff. 1r-417v) and
Pachomius (ff. 418r-561v), in which the homily is on 352v-361v91.
That Abercius himself was not himself selecting the entries for in- clusion but was submitting them to Hilarion for the abbot’s approval and in some cases was being instructed to include entries against his will is revealed by the fact that occasionally in a gloss he expresses misgivings about the authenticity of an entry. There are, for instance, two entries for the feast of St Nicholas of Myra on 6 December, the Vita S. Nicolai Sio- nitae (BHG 1347) (№ 11, ff. 121r-149r) followed by Symeon Metaphrastes’
Vita et conversatio et singularis miraculorum narratio clarissimi Nicolai archiepiscopi Myrae (BHG 1349) (ff. 149r-174r). The first of these was
originally the Vita of Nicholas, abbot of Sion near Myra, who later became bishop of Pinara in Lycia, but he was later confused with Nicholas of Myra and his Greek Vita was altered accordingly. This latter version was translated into Slavonic and Abercius, rightly considering that its account
of St Nicholas was spurious, addeda gloss at the foot of the folio with the
passage recounting how Nicholas sacrificed bulls to appease divine wrath
which had visited a plague upon the people of Myra (f. 140v
): Íå ìíþ á¥U ´ñò´íà ñ·å ñëîђB, I do not consider this entry to be the truth, while at the foot
of the folio where Symeon Metaphrastes’ Vita begins (149r
) he wrote: Ñ·å æ´ò·å ïðàâî sýëî à ïðúâî ñåìó íåäîñòî´íî ¬Tђ. This Vita is very correct but the preceding one is unworthy. Or again, the entry for the feast of St Mark the Apostle on 25 April is the apocryphal Martyrium S. Marci (BHG
1035-1036) (№ 13, ff. 311r-315v). Abercius appreciated its true nature and
at the top of the folio with the passage in the middle of the vita where the
pagans are preparing to arrest St Mark (f. 313v
) he noted in a gloss: Òî ì· å
ñëîâî íåñëDàêî ´ íåâhðíî. For me this entry is unsavoury and unbelievable92.
This inevitably raises the question as to why he included such entries in the menologium, to which the answer is found in one of his glosses in the first volume. September 14 is the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross,
91 Lit.: ОИПБ, 1868 год, pp. 123-134; Б. АНГЕЛОВ, Неизвестни ръкописи на Мар-
дарий Рилски, in Известия на Института за литература, 21 (1972), pp. 43-65, see pp. 44-
58; ИВАНОВА, Bibliotheca, pp. 61-62; Б. ХРИСТОВА – В. ЗАГРЕБИН – Г. ЕНИН – Е. ШВАРЦ,
Славянские рукописи болгарского происхождения в Российской национальной библиотеке – Санкт-Петербург, Sofia, 2009, pp. 199-209; the gloss ed. ИВАНОВА, Bibliotheca, p. 381.
92 И
ВАНОВА, Чети-минеи, p. 326, n. 24; EAD., Bibliotheca, p. 145, wonders whether
íåñëDàêî, unsavoury, is a scribal error for íåñêëàDíî, which is ingenious but requires evidence that the latter word was used in the sense of not well-organized in the first half of the sev- enteenth century.
for which six entries are given (№ 8, ff. 203v-266v), the last of them being
Menander Protector’s Narratio de apparitione et inventione Crucis (BHG
396+399+405) (ff. 259r-266v), the authenticity of which Abercius rejected
as two of his glosses reveal: beside the passage describing how a Jew named Judas revealed the location of the True Cross to Empress Helena
(f. 264r
) he wrote: Íå ëúæ´, åðåò´æå, Ìàêàð·å wáðhòü, à íå òĄ”. Do not lie, O heretic, Macarius discovered [it] and not you, while beside the passage describing how Judas drove out Satan, who complains: Äðåâë¬ áî àç
Ióäîþ ñúòâîð´a ëþäåìü ñúãðýø´ò´ ´ í‚íÿ Ióäîþ ïðîãîí´ìü ¬ñìü (f. 264v).
Formerly I by Judas made the people sin and today I am banished by Judas, is the gloss: Ìëú½´, ëúæ´, âüíó½å, íђTý òàêî, wUê¹D íåâýðíü ´ íåêЃðùåíü áýñ¹ äà çàïðhò´U, Be silent, lies, little one, it is not thus, how could an un- baptized infidel command the devil? Beside the title of the entry (f. 259r)
is a gloss which reads: Ñ·å ñëђBî íђTý ´ñò´ííî, íå áýøå çäå ´ãóìåíà äàBђøàãNîJ ´çâDî, ´ íå çìåa ñ·å wUìhí¹ò´ ðàD ” ÿZ⥠{ This homily is not veracious, had it not been for the abbot here giving me the exemplar, and I dared not ex- clude this because of punishment93. Abercius clearly risked being punished
if he omitted an entry which the abbot had given him because of his misgivings about its authenticity, which means that it remains uncertain to what extent Abercius was himself responsible for the final choice of en- tries for the menologium.
In all three colophons of the September to November volumes he states that he has worked under the supervision and with the assistance of Hilarion and his fellow monks of Hilandar. These assertions might be considered commonplaces were it not for the fact that the colophon of the last volume of the menologium which he copied (№ 13) contains a eulogy of Hilarion in which the latter is called the patron (êò´òîðü), supervisor (íàñòîÿòåëü) and driving force (ïðîìĄñëüí´êü) behind the project. The colophon is also remarkable for an unusual linguistic phenomenon — the
sudden appearance of nasals, which has been noted but not explained94.
93 Whether the literal sense of
ÿçâà – a beating – is meant is unclear. Abercius addresses the devil as âüíó½å, literally, grandson, but clearly in the negative Biblical sense, see, for example, Isaiah 14:29 in the Septuagint.
94 Thus, for instance, ИВАНОВА, Чети-минеи, p. 319, merely comments: Защо на такова
емблематично място като последната бележка, в която копистът не следва чужд текст, а реди думи от себе си, “прощавайки се” със своето дело и оставяйки го за завършване в чужде ръце, точно тогава в правописа на Аверкие се появяват носовки? [...] Въпросът остава открит. Why is it that at such an emblematic place as the final note, in which the
copyist is not following another text but is himself choosing his words and “saying farewell” to his work and leaving it for the finishing touches to other hands, that precisely then nasals appear in Abercius’ orthography? [...] The question remains open.
In fact the nasals appear only in one passage of the colophon, viz. the eu- logy of Hilarion: Íå òüђcþ òà” ñåN Y äîN YY ñüòâîð´ ã‚ë Õ·ëàђOäàðü ðåђLñå âüâåDí·å ïðhñ‚òĄå á‚ö¹ õðNà, í© ´ ´íàà ìíwãàà äîáðàà ´ђF íå ëýòü åђT ï´Tђí· ïðýäàò´. Í´ ìîãîa ï´ñàò´ åùå åì© æ´â© ñ©ù¹ ïðýäàa ñ·à ìëú½àí·, ᆹ åDí”îì¹ âýäîìà ñ¹òü! ÐöåN åì¹ äîáðàà, áðàò·å, ðúöåN, äà ´ íàN ðåê¹U.
Not only did he do those things for this house called Hilandar, namely the Presentation of the Most Holy Mother of God in the Temple, but also many other good things, which it is not possible to commit to writing. Nor could I write [about them] while he is still alive, [so] I have consigned these things to silence, to God alone are they known. Let us say good things of him, brethren, let us say [them] so that [people] will also say [them] of us.
The passage reveals that Abercius had little idea of the correct use of
nasals: the participle ãëàãîëť is correct and the third person plural ðåê¹òú
as opposed to ðåê©òú is already common from an early period, while the
genitives ï´ñàí·ť and ìëú½àí·ť could be construed as the influence of
later Church Slavonic, but that would not explain ñ©ù¹ and í©, which are found in early Slavonic but not in Church Slavonic, while the datives åì© æ´â© are incorrect in early or late Slavonic. Since these nasals appear precisely in the passage in which he praises abbot Hilarion the most likely explanation is surely that for Abercius they represented a venerable tra- dition found in early texts and hence their use gave force to his expression of respect for the abbot. There are also two nasals in a phrase at the end of the colophon: ì‚ë´òåñå î ìíý ãðýøíýN æ´â¶N âàìü ùå ñ©ùN·, pray for me a sinner you who are still alive, where it is unclear whether the spelling ťùå
for ¬ùå is a scribal error or intended to indicate his respect for the readers. In addition to the above-mentioned codex III.b.20 of the Croatian Academy it has been claimed that Abercius also used a Serbian meno- logium for the months of September to November copied in the mid- fourteenth century by the scribes Draiko (ff. 1-209) and Stanislav (ff. 210- 373), codex 1039 in the collection of the Bulgarian National Library, 373
ff. An inscription on f. 2v written by metropolitan Theodosius of Skopje
reveals that he bound the MS but the date is unclear and could be either #çðЃíà, 7151 (1642/3), or #çðЃïà, 7181 (1672/3). Two inscriptions of the sev- enteenth century on the inside of the front cover, one of them written by abbot Philotheus of Mark’s monastery of St Demetrius near Sušica, reveal
that it belonged to that monastery and on ff. 1v-2r is another inscription
7181 (1672/3) at the request of abbot Philotheus95. The codex now has 52
entries but the ending is missing and it breaks off in the entry for 13
November. The fiftieth entry (ff. 337r-365v) is Leontius of Neapolis’ Vita
S. Joannis eleemosynarii (BHG 886) for 12 November, which is also in
the Hilandar menologium for the same day (№ 10, ff. 70v-113v). A com-
parison of the two texts reveals that they have common mistakes, e.g. in- stead of ´äåæå áý ½üðíüöü ´ Ïîðô´ð·à ÿæå (some MSS add: áýøå) § áëóäí´öü, where the monk was and Porphyria, who [was] from the whores, they both have ´äåæå áý ½üðíüöü Ïîðô´ð·´ ´æå áýøå § áëó- äí´öü, where the monk Porphyrius was, who was from the whores, which incidentally shows that Abercius did not always pay attention to the sense of what he was copying. It has been concluded that the earlier MS was
almost certainly Abercius’ exemplar96. However, the above-mentioned
inscriptions in the codex clearly reveal that in the seventeenth century it was in the monastery of St Demetrius near Sušica some 20 km. south of Skopje so that it remains uncertain whether Abercius could have used it as an exemplar at Karyes.
In the first half of the seventeenth century Serbian interest in the compilation of a menologium was not limited to Hilandar. A scribe called Demetrius copied a volume with the months of September to December for Patriarch Paisius I of Peć (1614-1647/8), codex 59 in the National Li-
95 Lit.: К. РАДЧЕНКО, Заметки о рукописях, хранящихся в болгарской митрополии г.
Скопья, с приложением службы Константину Философу по древне-болгарскому списку XIII века, in Известия Отделения русского языка и словесности Императорской Ака- демии наук, 12, iii (1907), pp. 147-162, see pp. 147-151; М. СТОЯНОВ – Х. КОДОВ, Опис на
славянските ръкописи в Софийската народна библиотека, vol. III, Sofia, 1964, pp. 246-252;
HANNICK, Maximos, p. 79; Б. ВЕЛЧЕВА, Отглас от Златния век на българска писменост. Ръкопис № 1039 от Народната библиотека, in Библиотеката. Минало и настояще. Юбилеен сборник, посветен на 125-годишнината на Народна библиотека “Св.Св. Кирил и Методий”, red. А. Дипчикова – Е. Мусакова, Sofia, 2005, pp. 266-274; К. ИВАНОВА, Уточнения към състава на чети-миней от Народната библиотека «Св. св. Кирил и Методий» № 1039, in ...Íýñòü ó½åí´êúíàäú ó½´òåëåìü ñâî´ìü. Сборник в чест на проф. дфн Иван Добрев, член-кореспондент на БАН и учител, red. А.-М. Тотоманова – Т.
Славова, Sofia, 2005, pp. 263-279, and EAD., Bibliotheca, pp. 93-94. Colophon and inscriptions ed. РАДЧЕНКО, Заметки, pp. 147-148; СТОЯНОВ – КОДОВ, Опис на славянските…, vol. III,
pp. 251-252; Й. ИВАНОВ, Български ръкописи из Македония, red. Б. и Д. АНГЕЛОВ, Sofia, 1970, pp. 123 and 125. The monastery is referred to as Mark’s monastery as the decoration of the church was completed in 1377 in the reign of King Mark of Serbia (1371-1395); for the monastery see ПЕТКОВИЋ, Преглед, pp. 180-183. All that is known about Metropolitan Theo-
dosius is that he bound this MS, see САВА, Jерарси, p. 488.
96 See Б. ВЕЛЧЕВА, За хилендарския препис на Словото за Йоан Милостиви, in Ме-
диевистика и културна антропология. Сборник в чест на 40-годишната творческа дейност на проф. Донка Петканова, red. А. Милтенова, Sofia, 1998, pp. 418-421 see p.
420, with a list of seven common errors, pp. 419-420. Unfortunately she gives no references to the folia on which they are to be found; this particular example is on f. 105v of № 10.
brary, Belgrade, 541 ff. The name of the scribe is found in a note written
inside an illuminated capital on f. 508r and another note on f. 541r reveals
for whom it was copied: Ï´ñà ãðýøí´ Äì´òðú, The sinful Demetrius wrote (this), and Ïîâåëýí·åìü ïðýwñђBùåííàãî àð±õ·åï‚ñêïà Ñðüá±ñêàãî êvðú Ïà´ñåà, By order of the most reverend archbishop of Serbia lord Paisius. Since the ductus of these notes is that of the scribe it is probable that he was also the artist who illuminated the capitals. The MS contains 106 entries, viz. seventy Vitae or Passions, six eulogies, twenty-two festal homilies and
five hagiographic tales97. Whether other volumes were ever compiled to
complete this menologium is unknown but no further volumes have been traced and hence the importance of the Hilandar menologium resides in
the fact that it is the largest extant complete South Slav menologium98.
Between 1614/5 and 1625/6 Abercius copied fourteen codices and then between 1631/2 and 1632/3 two more, but there has been some con-
fusion as to the total volume of his work. Abercius himself made two state-
ments on the subject:
1. In the colophon of the last volume of the menologium which he copied in 1625/6 (№ 13) he stated that the above-mentioned scribe had written 355 quires of the menologium and 107 quires of the synaxarium, viz. 462 quires or 3696 folia. In the colophon he had already mentioned the other scribe of the menologium but this reference to the above- mentioned scribe can only refer to Abercius himself since the number of 97 Lit.: М. ХАРИСИJАДИС, Панегирик грешног Дмитра, in Зборник Народног Музеjа у Београду, 5 (1967), pp. 329-349; Ђ. ШТАВЉАНИН-ЂОРЂЕВИЋ, Стари ћирилски рукописи Народне библиотеке у Београду. Кратак попис, in Библиотекар, 20 (1968), pp. 391-423, see p. 404; БОГДАНОВИЋ, Инвентар, p. 79, № 1058; Ђ. ШТАВЉАНИН-ЂОРЂЕВИЋ – М. ГРОЗДА- НОВИЋ-ПАJИЋ – Л. ЦЕРНИЋ, Опис ћирилских рукописа Народне библиотеке Србиjе (= Опис jужнословенских ћирилских рукописа, 2), Belgrade, vol. I, 1986 pp. 135-145; СУБОТИН- ГОЛУБОВИЋ, Наслеђе, p. 211, № 442; ИВАНОВА, Чети-минеи, p. 314, and EAD., Bibliotheca, pp. 132-134. Notes (ff. 508r and 541r) ed. Ш
ТАВЉАНИН-ЂОРЂЕВИЋ – ГРОЗДАНОВИЋ-ПАJИЋ –
ЦЕРНИЋ, Опис ћирилских…, vol. I, p. 145. The notes are here reproduced on the basis of the edition by Štavljanin-Djordjević et al.
98 It is the largest extant South Slav menologium since the ten-volume “Stoudiou col-
lection” allegedly compiled at the time of Euthymius of Târnovo (1320s-after 1393, patriarch c. 1375-1393) remains as yet a hypothetical construct whose contents have not been described in detail; it was first posited by Ioan Iufu and his wife Zlatca, see I. și Z. IUFU, Coleţia Studion, in
Biserica Ortodoxă Română, 87 (1969), pp. 817-835, and З. ЮФУ, За десеттомната колекция
Студион. (Из архива на румънския изследвач Йон Юфу), in Studia Balcanica, 2, 1970, pp.
299-342; see more recently D. ZAMFIRESCU, Les grands ménologes de lecture du Patriarche
Euthyme de Târnovo, in Търновска книжовна школа, 7 (2002), pp. 87-104, and С. ТЕМЧИН,
Методика отождествления кирилло-методиевских гомилий, in Text–Sprache– Grammatik. Slavisches Schrifttum der Vormoderne. Festschrift für Eckhard Weiher, hr. J. BESTERS-DILGER
– A. RABUS (= Die Welt der Slaven. Sammelbände, 39), München, 2009, pp. 125-137, see pp. 128-134.
folia in the synaxarium (№№ 5-7) is 860 and in the volumes of the meno- logium which he had copied (№№ 8-13) it is 2841, viz. a total of 3701 folia or 462 quires and 5 folia.
2. In his quadragesimale of 1631/2 (№ 15) he stated that he had copied this Chrysostomicon and also the others, in all 535 quires, viz. 4280 folia. The number of folia in the synaxarium and his part of the me- nologium (№№ 5-13) is 3701 and in his homiliary of 1625/6 (№ 14) it is 577, viz. 4278 folia or 534 quires and 6 folia, in other words the others refers to all the previous MSS which he had copied at Karyes, which in turn means that all of the codices which he copied at the hermitage be- tween 1620/1 and 1631/2 (№№ 5-14) have survived and hence the claim that he must undoubtedly have copied more MSS between 1626 and 1633
is incorrect99.
The number of folia in the Vita Barlaam et Joasaph (№ 16), which he copied at Karyes in 1632/3, is unknown but can be roughly estimated at
about 260100. This evidence also shows that if he did copy the Iviron
codex at the Athonite kellion of the Saviour he must have done so after he had copied the MSS at the hermitage at Karyes. The total number of folia of the MSS which he copied at Karyes (№№ 5-16) including the Us- pensky folia is thus 5089, which together with the 1082 folia of the prev-
ious four MSS101 gives a grand total of 6171 folia, which will obviously
increase if he indeed copied part of the Iviron codex (№ 17).
Abercius’ statement that he had copied this Chrysostomicon and also the others has been misunderstood to mean that he copied more Chryso- stomica, the number of pages of which has been estimated to be about
3200, viz. 1600 folia102. This estimate would mean that he copied over
15,500 pages, although for no obvious reason it has been claimed that the
overall total is about eighteen thousand pages, viz. 9000 folia103. In fact
all that can be said is that the total number of folia which he copied is at
99 The claim was made by СУБОТИН-ГОЛУБОВИЋ, Наслеђе, p. 56: несумњиво. 100 This is the average number of folia of five MSS with the second translation of the tale
of Barlaam and Joasaph, viz. Croatian Academy III.c.15, Hilandar 422, Rumanian Academy 132+Shchukin 605, Rumanian Academy 158 and Vienna 35, in all 1303 ff.
101 It must not be forgotten that he only copied 200 folia of № 3 and 114 of № 4. 102 See СИНДИК, Писар, p. 380, and СУБОТИН-ГОЛУБОВИЋ, Наслеђе, p. 56. They give
no reason for this estimate of 1600 folia but since the number of folia in the Chrystomicon is 551 they seem to have assumed that he had copied two more Chrystomica, viz. a total of three with about 1653 folia.
103 See С
ИНДИК, Писар, p. 380: укупан број преписаних страница износио око оса-
least 6171, an output that has justifiably been termed colossal104. The fact
that Abercius kept an accurate account of the number of quires which he
had copied has been considered pedantic105, but the fact that he copied no-
thing for some five years (1626/7-1630/1) points not so much to a pedant as to someone who for six years (1620/1 to 1625/6) had obediently copied 4278 folia, an annual average of 713 per year, but had not particularly enjoyed doing so. Not for nothing did he complain in the colophon of the last volume of the menologium which he copied (№ 13) that he had not had time to illuminate any of the initial letters. The only contemporary scribe whose output has been considered comparable is Gabriel of the monastery of the Holy Trinity at Vrhobreznica near Pljevlja in Herce- govina, who copied at least nine MSS containing 2321 folia between 1633
and 1651106. The comparison is, however, inequitable in so far as Gabriel
compiled the Vrhobreznica Chronicle covering the period from Creation to 1648, whereas Abercius only copied texts and apart from his colophons and glosses did not — as far as is known — compose or compile anything original107.
Although Abercius remained at the hermitage for at least twelve years, viz. from early 1621 at the latest until at least late 1632, there is no
104 ИВАНОВА, Чети-минеи, p. 314: Преписваческият труд на Аверкие е колосален; cf.
БОГДАНОВИЋ, Историjа, p. 259: огроман опус, a huge opus.
105 See СИНДИК, Писар, p. 380: његовој педантно вођеној евиденцији свога рада у
Кареји.
106 The comparison was made by С
ИНДИК, Скрипториjум, p. 355; seven of Gabriel’s
MSS are listed in БОГДАНОВИЋ, Инвентар, №№ 179, 799, 1349, 1730, 1800, 2210 and R 226;
for another two see VAŠICA – VAJS, Soupis, pp. 263-275. On Gabriel and his MSS see С. ПЕТ- КОВИЋ, Манастир света Троjица код Пљеваља (= Монографиjе Института за историjу
уметности, 3), Belgrade, 1974, pp. 86-96; for the monastery of the Trinity, which is first
mentioned in 1537, see ПЕТКОВИЋ, Преглед, pp. 329-330; on scribal activity there in Abercius’ day see СУБОТИН-ГОЛУБОВИЋ, Наслеђе, pp. 179-181, who only lists three of Gabriel’s MSS,
ibid., № 354, № 620 and № 779 = БОГДАНОВИЋ, Инвентар, № 779, № 1349 and № 1800.
107 Gabriel’s autograph of his chronicle is codex IX.G.6 in the National Museum at
Prague. Only fragments have been edited, see СТОJАНОВИЋ, Хрисовуљи, pp. 91-101 and 150- 153, and ID., Стари српски родослови и летописи (= Зборник за историjу, jезик и књи-
жевност српскога народа. Прво одељење, 16), Sremski Karlovic, 1927, pp. 3-39. Even less
illuminating is Sindik’s comparison, Писар, p. 380, of Abercius’ output with that of the Serbian hieromonk Gabriel Stefanović (c. 1680-c. 1749), whose eleven MSS in the collection of the Serbian Academy alone contain 5930 folia, see СТОJАНОВИЋ, Каталог, pp. 12-51 and 84-171.
Stefanović lived in a different age, one of transition from mediaeval Slavonic literature to European vernacular literature. He is a controversial figure but an apposite assessment of him as the last writer of Serbian Slavonic and the first of early modern Serbian is given by Ђ. ТРИФУНОВИЋ, Стара српска књижевност. Основе (= Библиотека Албатрос, 47), Belgrade,
1994, p. 141: Гаврил био jе уjедно и последњи писац на српскославенском, али и први и последњи на старом српском народном jезику.
evidence that he was ever its superior, viz. the tipikar108. The date of his
death is not recorded but an attempt to calculate it has been made on the basis of data contained in the register of the principal events at the her- mitage at Karyes, which was copied in 1645 and continued down to
1836109. In 1645 Dionysius, the then tipikar, began new lists of those to be
commemorated at the hermitage by copying names from previous dip- tychs and leaving folia blank for the addition of new names, although on the left side of the blank folia he wrote a formula, usually ïîNђ ã‚´ ð, written
for the first time (f. 11v
) as Ïîìåí´, ã‚´, äøŤå ðàáü ñâî´õü, although on the folia where Dionysius himself wrote the names he usually added the cor- rect title, e.g. ïîNђ ã‚´ åðåà, followed by the name. There are folia for arch-
bishops (ff. 10v-11r), bishops (ff. 11v-12v), hieromonks (ff. 13r-15v), monks
(f. 16r-v
), the neutral formula ïîN ã‚´ ð (ff. 17r-20v), priests (f. 21r-v), nuns
(f. 22r) and finally the neutral formula once again (ff. 22v-36v). Later
hands have added names and in some places written a title at the top of a folia with the neutral formula, e.g. ìîíàñò¥ðü Ìîùàí´öà, the Monastery
of Moštanica (f. 18v)110
and Âëàõ·à, Wallachia (f. 20r).
In his preface dated Karyes, 4 July 1645 (f. 3v) Dionysius warns that
nobody should make an entry in the register without prior permission111:
Âú ëåUђ &çЎð‚íãЎ ïîíîâиa и ïðýïиñàa ñ·þ ïðђTêìD·þ ïîђQ Ä·wí´ñ·å ãðåøí·´ âú ò´ï´- êàð±ñòâå ñâîåN. † ¸ ïàђL âúí´ìà´òå, Нö‚´ ´ áðàò·w, àùå êòî äðüçíåòü íàï´ñàU´ ñåђA ´ë´ ëþáî êîãî áåZ áëђTâí·à íàñòîÿòåëÿ çåDøíàC,P òàêîâ´” ´ñï´øåU ñåђA æ´âîòí´a êí´ãü, àùå ë´ êòî ´çâîë´òú ñåAђ ï´ñàU´ âú ñ·þ ïðîêђTì·Dþ ñú wá´½í´N áëђTâåí·åN, òî´M íàï´ñàOђ á¹äåU âú êí´ãàa æ´âîòí´a âú âýêĄ, àì´Oђ.
¸ ìåíå ãðhøíàC P ïðîñ´Uòå ïîíåæå ñëîBђ íå ¹½´a, òཷþ äà íýђT ñòðúïàòíî àùå ´