INFORMATION TO USERS
While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. For example:
• Manuscript pages may have indistinct print. In such cases, the best available copy has been filmed.
• Manuscripts may not always be complete. In such cases, a note will indicate that it is not possible to obtain missing pages.
• Copyrighted material may have been removed from the manuscript. In such cases, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is also filmed as one exposure and is available, for an additional charge, as a standard 35mm slide or as a 17”x 23” black and white photographic print.
Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or microfiche but lack the clarity on xerographic copies made from the microfilm. For an additional charge, 35mm slides of 6”x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography. Order Number 8717684
Manuscript attribution through paper analysis: Hilandar Monastery in the fourteenth century. [A case study]
Matejic, Predrag, Ph.D.
The Ohio State University, 1987
Copyright ©1987 by Matejic, Predrag. All rights reserved.
U MI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 PLEASE NOTE:
In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark .
1. Glossy photographs or pages _____
2. Colored illustrations, paper or print ______
3. Photographs with dark background ____
4. Illustrations are poor copy ______
5. Pages with black marks, not original copy _____
6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page ______
7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages \/
8. Print exceeds margin requirements _____
9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine ______
10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print ______
11. Page(s)______lacking when material received, and not available from school or author.
12. Page(s)______seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.
13. Two pages numbered . Text follows.
14. Curling and wrinkled pages _____
15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received ______
16. Other ______
University Microfilms International MANUSCRIPT ATTRIBUTION THROUGH PAPER ANALYSIS: HILANDAR MONASTERY IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY (A Case Study)
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
by
Predrag Matejic, B.A., M.A., M.L.S., Doctor of Philological Sciences
*******
The Ohio State University
1987
ssertation Committee: Approved by D. F. Robinson E. R. Levin C. K. Zacher Adviser Department of Slavic and East European Languages & Literatures Copyright by Predrag Matejic 1987 DEDICATION
I wish to dedicate this dissertation,
with sincerest gratitude, to
my parents,
to my mother, for her constant faith in my abilities and the support she has always given me,
and to my father, for all that which I hope he understands, and for which I can never find all the words to express— a son who at tempts even in part to follow such a father’s footsteps can but do right at least some of the time; mine was an impossible task, for his footsteps are well beyond my reach... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to a number of people—
to ray adviser, Dr. David Robinson, for his com petent suggestions and support; to Dr. Leon I. Twarog of The Ohio State University, for his support and encourage ment these many past years; to Dr. William J. Studer, Ms. Jill B. Fatzer, Ms. Gay N. Dannelly, Dr. William J. Crowe and other colleagues of The Ohio State University Libra ries, for their understanding and support, as well as their patience; and to Dr. Erwin and Ms. Dantupno of the )> College of Humanities; to Academician Dimitrije Bogdanovic for his ad vice and encouragement; and to friends such as Michael for their calm faith; to a young Bulgarian, Miroslav Zemfirov, who tragically died young, but who managed to convince me that there was both science and magic in the study of paper; to Mr. R. Mirazovic, who assisted me in the preparation of the Figures;
and not least of all, to the quiet monks of Hilandar Monastery for allowing me to spend a portion of my life with them those now many years ago and thereby be redirected and changed, finding now happiness in the puz zles of the past, as well as for allowing my father to trace copies of the watermarks, thus hnaking this disserta tion possible;
i i i and finally, to my wife and son for all the time that could not be spent with them, time which can not be made up, and for more than I can express.
iv VITA
August 2, 1952 ...... Born - Lingen Ems, West Germany
1974 ...... B.A., Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio
1978 ...... Doctor of Philological Sciences, University of Sofia "Kliment Okhridski", Sofia, Bulgaria
1979 ...... M.A., Yale, New Haven, Ct.
1985 ...... M.L.S., Kent State Univei— sity, Kent, Ohio
1982-Present ...... Curator, Hilandar Research Library, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
PUBLICATIONS
Btilgarskii^t khimnopiseCs Efrem ot XIV vek. Delo i znache- nie. Sofia: BBlgarska akademiia na naukite, 1982.
Watermarks of the Hilandar Slavic Codices. A Descriptive Catalog. Balcanica III, Etudes et Documents 2. So fia: CIBAL, 1981.
Hilandar Room Slavic Manuscripts on Microfilm. Supplemental Checklist No. 1. Columbus: OSU Slavic Papers No. 5, Department of Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures, 1980. /with Mateja Matejic/
Hilandar Slavic Manuscripts. A Checklist of the Slavic Manuscripts from the Hilandar Monastery Available on Microfilm at The Ohio State University. Columbus: Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, 1972. /with Mateja Matejic/
(Translation) A Bio-Bibliographical Handbook of Bulgarian Authors. Matejic, M., et al. Edited by Karen L. Black. Columbus: Slavica Publishers, Inc., 1981.
v Publications (continued)
"Kum vBprosa za avtografite na Paisii lOiilendarski," Lite- raturoznanie i folkloristika v chest na 70-godishni- nata na Akademik Petur Dinekov. Sofia: izd. na BAN, 1983, pp. 253-257.
"Khimnopisefsftt Efrem - znachitelen bulgarski knizhovnik ot XIV vek," BBlgaristi i bulgaristika. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1981, pp. 230-234.
"Efrem i bulgarski sbornik ot kraia na XIV vek," TBrnovska knizhovna shkola II: Uchenilsi i posledovateli na Evtimii Tiirnovski /Vtori mezhdunaroden simpozium, Veliko Turnovo, 20-23 mai, 1976/. Sofia: izd. na BAN, 1980, pp. 230-238.
"Neizvesten bfilgarski sbornik ot kraia na XIV vek," Ezik i literatura No. 1 (1976), pp. 56-58. TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION...... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iii
VITA ...... v
LIST OF TABLES...... ix
LIST OF F I G U R E S ...... xi
LIST OF PLATES...... xiii
INTRODUCTION ...... 1
E n d n o t e s ...... 12
CHAPTER PAGE
I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ...... 13
A. Paleography...... 13 B. Watermark Studies and the Slavs . . . 21 C. Brief History of Hilandar Monastery . 23 E n d n o t e s ...... 33
II. MANUSCRIPT ATTRIBUTION THROUGH PAPER: METHODOLOGY...... 39
E n d n o t e s ...... 72
III. MANUSCRIPT ATTRIBUTION THROUGH PAPER: RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS ...... 74
E n d n o t e s ...... 100
IV. MANUSCRIPT ATTRIBUTION THROUGH PAPER: SUGGESTED PROOFS OF VALIDITY ...... 102
E n d n o t e s ...... 142
CONCLUSION: MANUSCRIPT ATTRIBUTION THROUGH PAPER: IMPLICATIONS ...... 146
vii A. Implications for Archeography/ Paleography...... 146 B. Implications for Hilandar Monastery . 153 C. Implications for Watermark Recording and Studies...... 157 D. Other Implications ...... 162 E n d n o t e s ...... 168
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 169
APPENDICES...... 177
A. Fourteenth-century Manuscripts in the Library of Hilandar Monastery ...... 178
B. Fourteenth-century Paper Manuscripts in the Libraryof Hilandar Monastery included in This S t u d y ...... 180
C. Plates: Hilandar Slavic Manuscript Fragments #759/VII and #739/111 (Which Belong to Hilan dar Slavic Manuscript #646) and Sample Page from Hilandar Slavic Manuscript #646 182
D. Plates: Hilandar Slavic Manuscript Fragment #759/X, Which Belongs to Hilandar Slavic Manu script #396 (Between Folia 303v-304r) ...... 188
E. Fourteenth-Century Hilandar Monastery Slavic Manuscripts on Parchment Attributed by Lucija C e r n i c ...... 193
F. Fourteenth-Century Hilandar Monastery Slavic Manuscripts on Paper Attributed by Lucija Cer nic and/or Dimitrije Bogdanovic ...... 195
G. Fourteenth-century Hilandar Monastery Slavic Manuscripts housed in Hilandar Monastery that are Products Known or Attributed to the Local Hilandar Scriptorium ...... 199
H. Figures: Fourteenth-century Watermarks found in Manuscripts Housed in the Library of Hilan dar Monastery Utilized for Manuscript Attribu tion ...... 213
I. Plates: Fourteenth-century Watermarks found in Manuscripts Housed in Hilandar Monastery Known or Attributed To Be Products of the Hi landar Scriptorium (Sample Pages) ...... 262
viii LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. XIV century parchment Hilandar manuscripts produced in Hilandar Monastery ...... 28
2. XIV century paper Hilandar manuscripts pro duced in Hilandar Monastery ...... 29
3. Proposed related paper in XIV century manu scripts housed in Hilandar Monastery .... 53
4. Group A. XIV century paper manuscripts in Hilandar Monastery produced in the scripto rium of Hilandar ...... 62
5. Group A]_. XIV century paper manuscripts in Hilandar Monastery with known scribes (un clear place of prod u c t i o n ) ...... 63
6. Relationship of Table 4 to Table 3 ...... 65
7. Relationship of Table 5 to Table 3 ...... 66
8. Group B. XIV century paper manuscripts in Hilandar attributed to known Hilandar scribes or manuscripts ...... 67
9. Group B. Manuscripts attributed to scribes of Hilandar...... 68
10. Group Bj. XIV century paper manuscripts in Hilandar attributed to other known scribes or manuscripts...... 69
11. Proposed related paper (fragments) ...... 75
12. Group C. Manuscripts attributed to Hilandar by paper or to paper of H i l a n d a r ...... 94
13. Group D. Manuscripts attributed to Hilandar by paper (from Group B ) ...... 95
ix TABLE PAGE
14. Group E. Manuscripts attributed to Hilandar by paper or to paper of Hilandar (from Groups C and D ) ...... 96
15. Group F. Manuscripts attributed to Hilandar by paper (from Group E) ...... 97
16. Fourteenth-century watermarks identified as identical in Hilandar manuscripts (from Groups A through F ) ...... 103
17. Paper utilized for album sources (watermarks) identified as identical in Hilandar manu scripts (from GroupsA through F ) ...... 104
18. Documents utilized for album sources (water marks) identified as identical in Hilandar manuscripts (from Table 17) ...... 105
19. Additional fourteenth-century watermarks iden tified as "identical" in Hilandar manuscripts 121
20. Paper utilized for album sources (watermarks) identified as "identical" in Hilandar manu scripts (from Table 1 9 ) ...... 122
21. Codices utilized for album sources (water marks) identified as identical in Hilandar manuscripts (from Table 20) ...... 123
22. Watermarks in manuscripts produced in Hilan dar that are found outside Hilandar Monastery 130
23. Watermarks in manuscripts produced in Hilan dar that are found outside Hilandar Monastery 132
24. Relationships shown between watermark album sources and watermarks in Hilandar Slavic ma nuscripts (from Tables 22 and 2 3 ) ...... 134
x LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. " P e a r " ...... 51
2. " He linen t" ...... 52
3. "Hunter’s H o r n " ...... 214
4. "Cask/’Baril’/Flask" ...... 215
5. "Two circles instersected by Cross/Staff" . . . 216
6. "Vase/Pot" ...... 219
7. "Letter L " ...... 220
8. "Unicorn" ...... 221
9. "Unicorn" ...... 222
10. " D e e r " ...... 223
11. "Pear with two l e a v e s " ...... 224
12. "Pear with two l e a v e s " ...... 226
13. "’Latin* cross" ...... 228
14. "Letter A " ...... 230
15. "Clover" ...... 232
16. "’Lorraine’ cross" ...... 233
17. " L i o n " ...... 234
18. "Scissors"...... 235
19. "Crown"...... 236
20. "Compass"...... 237
21. "Horses’ hea d s " ...... 238
xi FIGUREPAGE
22. " P e a r " ...... 239
23. "Patriarchal’ cross" ...... 241
24. "Bow and arrow"...... 242
25. "Dragon" ...... 243
26. "Letter g " ...... 245
27. "Letter A " ...... 246
28. "Hunter’s h o r n " ...... 247
29. "Three mounts surmounted by cross" ...... 248
30. "Helmet surmounted by lion" ...... 249
31. "Vase/Pot" ...... 251
32. "Flower" ...... 252
33. "Bow and arrow"...... 253
34. "Dragon" ...... 254
35. "Dragon/Griffin" ...... 255
36. "Hunter’s h o r n " ...... 256
37. "Hunter’s h o r n " ...... 257
38. "Arbalete” ...... 260
39. "Leopard"...... 261
xii LIST OF PLATES
lTE PAGE
I. Hilandar Slavic manuscr ipt f ragment #759/VII (folio lr) . 183
II. Hilandar Slavic manuscr ipt fragment #759/VII (folio lv) . 184
III. Hilandar Slavic manuscr ipt f ragment #739/111 (folio lr) . 185
IV. Hilandar Slavic manuscr ipt f ragment #739/111 (folio lv) . 186
V. Hilandar Slavic manuscr ipt #646 (folio 2r) . 187
VI. Hilandar Slavic manuscr ipt #396 (folio 303v) 189
VII. Hilandar Slavic manuscr ipt f ragment #759/X (folio lr) . . . . 190
VIII. Hilandar Slavic manuscr ipt fragment #759/X (folio lv) . . .
IX. Hilandar Slavic manuscr ipt #396 (foli o 304r) 192
X. Hilandar Slavic manuscr ipt #3/1 (folio lr) . 263
XI. Hilandar Slavic manuscript #9 (folio 8r) . . 264
XII. Hilandar Slavic manuscript #10 (folio 4v) . . 265
XIII. Hilandar Slavic manuscr ipt #13 (folio 5v) . . 266
XIV. Hilandar Slavic manuscript #19 (folio 7r) . . 267
XV. Hilandar Slavic manuscr ipt #47 (folio lv) . . 268
XVI. Hilandar Slavic manuscript #48 (folio 2v) . . 269
XVII. Hilandar Slavic manuscript #55 (folio lOr) . 270
XVIII. Hilandar Slavic manuscript #79 (folio 2r) . . 271
xiii PLATE PAGE
XIX. Hilandar Slavic manuscript #84 (folio 2V) . 272
XX. Hilandar Slavi c manuscr pt #126 foli o 5v) . 273
XXI. Hilandar Slavi c manuscr pt #127 folio lr) . 274
XXII. Hilandar Slavi c manuscr pt #128 foli o 3r) . 275
XXIII. Hilandar Slavi c manuscr Pt #142 folio lr) . 276
XXIV. Hilandar Slavi c manuscr pt #142 foli o 65v) 277
XXV. Hilandar Slavi c manuscr pt #143 folio lr) . 278
XXVI. Hilandar Slavi c manuscn pt #145 foli o 4r) . 279
XXVII. Hilandar Slavi c manuscr Pt #146 foli o 12r) 280
XXVIII. Hilandar Slavi c manuscnpt #146 foli o 83r) 281
XXIX. Hilandar S lavi c manuscr Pt #147 foli o 3r) . 282
XXX. Hilandar Slavi c manuscrx Pt #148 foli o 4r) . 283
XXXI. Hilandar Slavi c manuscr Pt #158 foli o 9r) . 284
XXXII. Hilandar Slavi c manuscn Pt #160 foli o 6r) . 285
XXXIII. Hilandar Slavi c manuscr Pt #180 foli0 3r) . 286
XXXIV. Hilandar Slavi c manuscn Pt #226 foli o 6r) . 287
XXXV. Hilandar Slavi c manuscn Pt #254 folio lv) . 288
XXXVI. Hilandar Slavi c manuscript #256 foli o lv) . 289
XXXVII. Hilandar Slavi c manuscript #257 folio 2r) . 290
XXXVIII . Hilandar Slav ic manuscript #258 (folio lr) 291
XXXIX. Hilandar Slav ic manuscript #381 (folio 6v) 292
XL. Hilandar Slav ic manuscript #388 (folio 2r) 293
XLI. Hilandar Slav ic manuscript #389 (folio 252r) 294
XLII. Hilandar Slav ic manuscript #390 (folio lr) 295 PLATE PAGE
XLIII. Hilandar Slavic manuscript #392 (folio 2r) 296
XLI V. Hilandar Slav ic manuscr ipt #422 (fol io 2r) 297
XLV. Hilandar Slavic manuscr ipt #454 (folio lr) 298
XLVI. Hilandar Slav ic manuscr ipt #473 (fol io 5r) 299
XLVII. Hilandar Slav ic manuscr ipt #474 (f olio 2r) 300
XLVIII. Hilandar Slav ic manuscr ipt #475 (fol io 6r) 301
XLIX. Hilandar S lav ic manuscr ipt #476 (fol io 2r) 302
L. Hilandar Slav ic manuscr ipt #477 (fol io 2v) 303
LI. Hilandar Slav ic manuscript #610 (fol io 13r) 304
LII. Hilandar Slav ic manuscr ipt #618 (fol io 80r) 305
LI 11. Hilandar Slav ic manuscript #644 (fol io lr) 306
LIV. Hilandar Slav ic manuscr ipt #646 (folio lr) 307
LV. Hilandar Slavic manuscript #760/1 (folio l r ) ...... 308
LVI. Hilandar Slavic manuscript #760/V (folio l r ) ...... 309
xv INTRODUCTION
Our research interests are often diverse and take us in different directions. Although I had previously oc cupied myself with the study of Russian, and later with the study of Slavic hymnography, interest in a completely different area of research, watermarks, developed subse quent to this earlier research had prompted a number of studies. Of these studies, the longest, prior to this dissertation, was research from 1978 to 1980 of the water marks of the Slavic codices in the Hilandar Slavic Manu script Collection. The immediate purpose of this research was to contribute more precise knowledge of the watermarks, in order to provide the most accurate possible dating of those manuscripts of the Hilandar Slavic Manuscript Col lection written on paper.
The Hilandar Slavic Collection is a large and impor tant collection of primarily Slavic manuscripts in various recensions, spanning eight centuries. Evidence in the ma nuscripts indicates that a number of these manuscripts were produced there, in the local scriptorium, others elsewhere. 2
For the vast majority there is no evidence of the place of production.
While the original manuscripts are virtually inac cessible, microfilms of the manuscripts were made during
1969-1975 by M. Matejic, W. Craig, and this author. Thus, through the efforts of the Hilandar Research Project,* the collection became truly accessible to scholars for the first time after 1975.
The Hilandar manuscripts had previously been dated by two scholars, M. Matejic in 1976 in a brief Checklist... of the codices, and D. Bogdanovid in 1978 in his Katalog... of the Hilandar Slavic manuscripts.1 While the dating pro vided by both authors is highly accurate, it was only after the more than two thousand tracings** of the watermarks of
*The Hilandar Research Project was started at The Ohio State University in 1969 through the efforts of M. Matejic and the support of the then Chairman of the Slavic Department, L. Twarog. It has grown from only an idea into what is now the Resource Center for Medieval Slavic Studies. It is nationally and internationally known and recognized for its efforts to promote medieval Slavic stu dies. Initially, a room in the Main Library which housed the materials gathered on microform from the research trips to Hilandar Monastery between 1969 and 1975 was part of the Hilandar Research Project. This library is now a special collection of The Ohio State University Libraries and is known as the Hilandar Research Library (formerly, Hilandar Room). In this manner, the name of Hilandar Monastery, which had the foresight to arrange to preserve its valuable collection of manuscripts on microfilm and to allow scholars access to it through its availability at Columbus, Ohio, as well as the name of the Hilandar Re search Project are preserved and honored in the name of this special collection. **These tracings were made by Mateja Matejic during four months of 1975 while on his third and longest research trip to the Holy Mount and Hilandar Monastery (previous 3
this collection could be analyzed and compared to other
already available data on the paper that the dating could
be considered for the most part established.2 In a cer
tain number of cases, the dating provided was now more
precise for these manuscripts, in other cases it confirmed
previous dating or supported the dating with additional
evidence.* Results of this analysis, together with sug
gestions for a change in the dating of a number of manu
scripts,** were published in 1981 (Predrag Matejic, Water
marks of the Hilandar Slavic Codices: A Description. So
fia: CIBAL, 1981).
It was only after this work was completed that it was possible to consider the totality of the watermark
evidence from this significant collection of manuscripts.
Questions in the mind of the author of this dissertation
trips had taken place during 1970 and 1971). It is a re markable feat of patience and skill, for literally thou sands of tracings of the watermarks in the collection were made during this brief period. The tracings housed at the Hilandar Research Library are thus the largest source re garding the paper in this collection. *Suggestions for a revision (which was usually re latively minor) or more specific dating were made for 93 of the 959 manuscripts.^ **Since it can not be stated with certainty that in each case were all the watermarks that are present in a given manuscript copied, it is possible, though not like ly, that the dating of a manuscript might yet change. More likely, in those cases where no watermarks were available or copied by either D. Bogdanovid or M. Matejic, or where the copies were insufficiently clear to make posi tive identification and dating possible, subsequent evi dence may later indicate a more precise dating of a certain number of manuscripts, which are now dated by means of other paleographic features, excluding the paper. 4 arose once it was noticed that several times a given water mark would be identified and dated according to the same reference number in a watermark album source.*
It was then that an attempt was made to see whether the different types of paper of a specific manuscript,
#342, could be found in other manuscripts from the Hilan dar Slavic collection. The working hypothesis at the time was that if the paper could be shown to be related, then it might be possible, with the support of other paleogra phic evidence, to suggest that the scriptorium of the po tentially related manuscripts might also be the same.**
*This was, in fact, remarked upon in the aforemen tioned work on the watermarks of the Hilandar codices, when an entire group of manuscripts appeared to be written on the very same paper— each having the same two watermarks. The manuscripts in question are #557, #558, #559, #560, #564, #580, #597 and #600.4 d_ Bogdanovi6 had attributed three of these manuscripts to Spiridon of Hilandar. Two others are reasonably similar in orthography. These manu scripts might represent one school, or scrip tori urn--the clue to this was provided by the paper.® **Hilandar Slavic Manuscript #342 is a fourteenth- century codice, copied during or very shortly after the lifetime of the Bulgarian hymnographer Efrem, who was si multaneously discovered in 1975 by D. Bogdanovi£, and by M. Matejic and the present author (neither party was aware that the other had made the same discovery until publica tions began to appear in 1976 and 1978).5 This manuscript contains Efrem’s six only known works. Efrem and this ma nuscript were the subject of my doctoral dissertation at Sofia University. Very little could be discovered about Efrem, and it had been hoped to establish the scriptorium in which Hilan dar Slavic Manuscript #342 had been produced, in order to have a better idea of where to proceed to look for further information on Efrem, who was a completely unknown Bulga rian hymnographer. The idea of investigating the paper of this manuscript in this manner occurred at a later point in time, as such an investigation could not be performed 5
While this investigation did not result in the po sitive identification of the place of copying of Hilandar
Slavic Manuscript #342, the method of investigation seemed sufficiently promising to be continued and expanded.
The problem posed by Hilandar Slavic manuscript
#342, upon examination, extended to the vast majority of the manuscripts in this collection. Only for a very small number of them did direct evidence of the actual or proba ble scriptorium exist. The vast majority of the manuscripts were "orphans", in effect, and likely to remain so.
Traditionally, paleographic techniques of scribal attribution rely on close examination of the texts and minute comparison of the manner of writing before an unat tributed manuscript may be proposed as having being copied by a specific scribe. More importantly, the method of scribal attribution relies on comparison to known scribes.
Where such scribes belonging to a specific scriptorium are few, potential relationships and attributions would, at best, be infrequent. Also, for this specific group of ma nuscripts access is limited to only male scholars (Mount
Athos has been closed to women for over 1,000 years), thus reducing the potential population of paleographers who could attribute the manuscripts). Bven researchers given
while the author was in Bulgaria, where watermark tracings of the collection did not exist. an opportunity to study the collection are usually limited
in the amount of time given them to conduct their research.
And finally, based on the number of attributions that have been made, there seem to be relatively few scholars who have the type of memory and recall to be aware that they had probably seen the same handwriting in a different ma nuscript, to remember where it had been seen, to find a copy of this manuscript and secure a copy of the manuscript
at hand, and then to perform the necessary research which would lead to a proposed attribution. For all practical purposes, if a manuscript does not contain a colophon or some other indication on the part of the scribe or scribes
regarding the place where it is being copied, this informa
tion regarding the scriptorium can only with great diffi culty and in very few cases be surmised by traditional pa
leographic means.
The extent of the problem in a collection such as
that of Hilandar Monastery is immense. For example, of the 114 manuscripts and/or fragments that are on paper and datable to the fourteenth century, only 9 have information
indicating that they were produced in Hilandar Monastery.
For only 1 is there direct evidence that it was produced e l s e w h e r e . ^ Thus, for more than 100 manuscripts in that collection, from that time period alone, there is no evi dence of the scriptorium/scriptoria where they were pro duced. We knowlittle about the history of these 100 fourteenth-century manuscripts except that they are now in the library of Hilandar Monastery. Whether they might have been produced at the monastery or how long they have been housed there is not clear. Only in the case of cer tain manuscripts, later marginal or other inscriptions may at best provide clues that the codice had been at Hilandar
Monastery for some time.
Since we may with virtual certainly assume that at least a portion of these 100-plus manuscripts were also produced in Hilandar, it would be of benefit to determine those that are likely candidates for having been produced in the local scriptorium of the monastery.
Upon analysis of the situation, it seemed that the manuscripts that we know beyond doubt to have been pro duced in Hilandar Monastery during the fourteenth century offer something concrete, even measurable, extending be yond this information and the scribes’ hands involved in the copying of these manuscripts; i.e., the paper on which these manuscripts were copied. Not only do we know for certain manuscripts that a particular scribe was in the monastery during a specified period of time, but that spe cific types of paper were in the monastery and used by the scribe or scribes.
Although this approach to the uses of paper analy sis seems straightforward, formal research and conversa tions with specialists in this country and in Europe indi cated that it had apparently never been attempted before on such a scale and for this purpose. First, the images of the watermarks in a given portion of the collection are compared in an attempt to determine the presence of the same paper in unattributed (having no indication of place of copying) manuscripts as that found in manuscripts known to have been produced in Hilandar. Secondly, the types and strength of the relationships involved are determined.
Nest, based upon these findings, it becomes possible to propose a group ofmanuscripts to be attributed to a speci fic scriptorium (in this case Hilandar). Finally, it would be necessary to conduct a paleographic study employ ing traditional considerations in order to determine whe ther further evidence could be found to confirm or deny such attributions.
The Hilandar manuscripts of the fourteenth century, due to their importance and the availability of watermark evidence, became the subject of this study. The fourteenth century is also the first century in which we generally find use of paper for manuscripts among the Slavs.
In addition to the above reasons, there should be little need to justify the choice of Hilandar Monastery.
"From its inception, Hilandar emerged as the most impor tant religious and national center of the Serbs...for many centuries, Hilandar provided Serbia with cultural, na tional and spiritual leaders”.** Hilandar’s importance, however, extended well beyond the borders of Serbia. This is particularly true of certain periods, one of which is the fourteenth century.
This rather simple premise— that possibly paper it self could provide the initial (possibly even conclusive) clue to the place of copying of a manuscript— was studied in several stages. At three different conferences, the author of this dissertation presented earlier results of this research as they occurred.*
Initially, this dissertation will present a brief history of Hilandar Monastery in the fourteenth century, as well as a brief history and explanation of traditional goals of Slavic paleography. The brief discussion of these histories will serve as a backdrop to a detailed elabora tion of the method, the results, the suggested proofs of validity, and the implications of this new** methodology
*The papers were presented at the following confer ences: "The Second American-Bulgarian Meeting of Scholars", Boston, September, 1981; "Medieval Monasteries and Reposi tories" (also known as the "Second International Hilandar Conference," Rila Monastery, Bulgaria, September 1984; "The Third International Congress of Bulgarian Studies", Sofia, Bulgaria, 1986. **The term "new" is used here, albeit with some re servation. No evidence could be found of a prior treatment or study of paper within a collection in the manner that will be proposed in the body of this dissertation. Yet, it is also true that one of the most difficult things to establish is that something is 'new' or 'unknown'. Rather 10 to traditional Slavic paleography involving the study of watermarks and paper, and to manuscript studies, in gene ral. In so doing, a new direction in paleography will be suggested and supported. This direction is based on the traditional paleographic technique of comparison, but in a considerably expanded manner. The author of this disser tation is confident that the expanded use of paper analy sis developed and illustrated in this work holds much pro mise for the future. Suggestions for future directions, as well as suggestions for means of strengthening tradi tional paleographic research of paper, will also be pro posed in the conclusion to the dissertation.
than spend the time to attempt to do so, the author of this dissertation feels that it would be better spent explaining that no evidence was found that it was not "new”. European and North American scholars, when given the opportunity on three separate occasions, in no way indicated that this method for this purpose was something of which they were aware. The term "methodology" may be something of a misno mer, as well. The methodology, in fact, involves the ap plication of a procedure that is used constantly in paleo graphy, i.e., comparison. While comparison has always been used in paleography, it is the change in purpose of comparison which is at the heart of the proposed variation in the manner in which paper (a watermark) is traditional ly analyzed. Thus, although a methodology needed to be developed for this study, it is not the methodology that is especially important here, but the premises and impli cations of these premises for the study of Slavic manu scripts. The essential aspect of the premise is that with certain manuscripts and in certain circumstances there is one additional feature that may be compared. That some thing is the paper itself. Paper can be analyzed indepen dently of the "hand" of a scribe, the recension of the ma nuscript, or even the supposed "school". 11
Appendices with supporting and other evidence will be provided at the end of the work. These appendices in clude: (Appendix G) a list of all codices in the present
Hilandar Monastery Slavic collection known or attributed to be products of the local scriptorium', (Appendix H) re productions of a number of the watermark tracings used as a basis for this study; and (Appendix I) sample pages from the texts of these codices. Tables and Figures that assist in the comprehension or illustration of the principles and results obtained will be provided in the body of this dis sertation.
Finally, it should be noted that the bulk of the research for this dissertation directly involved the use and comparisons of primary sources, i.e., tracings of watermarks of the fourteenth-century Hilandar Slavic Manu script Collection that are available at the Hilandar Re search Library through the efforts of M. Matejic and the
Hilandar Research Project. Secondary sources, where ap propriate, are cited throughout the dissertation. ENDNOTES INTRODUCTION
J-Mateja Matejic, Hilandar Slavic Codices, (Columbus: Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, 1976); Di- mitrije Bogdanovid, Katalog dirilskib rukopisa Manastira Hilandara, (Beograd: Srpska Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti, Narodna Biblioteka SR Srbije, 1978).
^Predrag Matejic, Watermarks of the Hilandar Slavic Codices: A Descriptive Catalog, (Sofia: Centre Interna tional d’Information sur les Sources de l’Histoire Balka- nique et Mdditerranednne /CIBAL/, 1981).
^Ibid., pp. 308-313.
4Ibid., p. 314.
^Bogdanovid, Katalog.... pp. 203-204.
®P. Matejic, "Neizvesten bulgarski sbornik ot kraf^ na XlV-vek," Bzik i literatura (1976), pp. 56-58; D. Bog- danovid, "Pesnidka tvorenija monaha Jefrema," Hilandarski Zbornik 4 (1978), pp. 109-130.
7The information is based on Bogdanovid, Katalog..♦. pp. 53-273, and P. Matejic, an unpublished inventory of the Hilandar Slavic Manuscript Collection.
®M. Matejic, Tbe Holy Mount and Hilandar Monastery, (Columbus, Ohio: The Hilandar Research Project, The Ohio State University, 1983).
12 CHAPTER I
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND A. Paleography
Paleography (from the Greek, palaios and grafo), which means "ancient" and "to write", is the science of the
study of ancient writing (scripts). Primarily by means of observation and comparison, paleography attempts to disco
ver changes in the form of writing from one period of time to another.^ It is the science most often used to deter mine the time and place of the copying of a manuscript for which these items of information are u n k n o w n . 2
One could claim that the first scholarly attempt in
paleography was the work proving that the "Donation of
Constantine" (Constitutum Donatio Constantini) was a for
gery. This occurred in 1440 when Lorenzo Valla determined, on the basis of paleography, that the document represent
ing the supposed proof that emperor Constantine the Great had given certain rights and privileges to the Pope of
Rome was a forgery.3
Lidiia Zhukovskaia, who has written a recent history of the development of Slavic* paleography, cites the first
*In this dissertation, "Slavic" refers only to Slavs
13 14 true effort in this field in 1717 by the Old Believer, An drei Denisov, as part of the debate of the Old Believers with Patriarch Nikon of Russia and his f o l l o w e r s . 4
The Russians, who alone at that time among the Eas tern Orthodox Slavs had an independent state and who had begun to enter the modern era during the time of Peter the
Great, first developed paleography among the Eastern Or thodox Slavs.
The early major efforts in Slavic paleography were by a number of Russian authors, whose works are still con sidered standard reference sources in the field of Slavic paleography. Among them, for example, are A. Gorskii, K.
Nevostruev, A. Kh. Vostokov, V. M. Undol’skii, I. I. Srez- nevskii, N. P. Likhachev, A. I. Sobolevskii, P. A. Lavrov,
E. F. Karskii, otets Leonid, M. N. Speranskii and V. N.
Shchepkin, the great philologists and linguists of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.5 The Russian tradition of experts in paleography continued into the
Soviet period with such scholars such as L. V. Cherepnin,
A. N. Perets, N. B. Tikhomirov, 0. A. Kniazevskafa, L. P.
Zhukovskafa, and especially E. E. Granstrem and D. S. Li khachev, the latter having done much in the areas of
who used the cyrillic script. For the most part, these were also Slavs who professed the Eastern Orthodox faith. Other Slavs, among them Poles, Czechs, and Croatians, wrote primarily in Latin, which is the subject of Western paleo graphy. 15 paleography and textual studies to both further and popu larize the field.®
The list of early Slavic experts in paleography, however, is not limited to the Russians. For example, it is sufficient to mention the name of the well-known Croa tian scholar, I. V. Jagid, who wrote a number of extremely important works in the nineteenth and early twentieth cen turies . ^
From Yugoslavia one could mention Lj. Stojanovid, S.
Petkovic, Dj. Sp. Radojicid, P. Djordji6, Dj. Trifunovic,
0. Nedeljkovid, L. Slaveva, L. Cernid, I. Grickat, and es pecially V. Mosin and D. Bogdanovid, only to name a few.®
The list of names from Bulgaria is also impressive, and includes scholars such as B. fsonev, I. Ivanov, B. An gelov, K. Kuev, B. Raikov, B. Velcheva, K. Ivanova, A.
Dzhurova, I. Dobrev, G. Popov, K. Stanchev, St. Kozhukka- rov, and especially lfo. Kodov and I. Duichev.
This by no means even begins to exhaust the list of names of former and present experts in paleography, or the areas of the world in which they lived and worked. Vir tually every country in Western and Eastern Europe has contributed great scholars to the field of Slavic paleo graphy.
It should also be noted that many scholars in the
United States and Canada have made significant contribu tions to Slavic paleography. 16
To return to the principles of paleography, however, it is a number of elements, taken together, that assist in the determination of a suggested date, for example, of an undated document or manuscript. Among these elements the following may be especially noted:
Material: the typical material utilized for the copying of manuscripts was parchment and/or paper.*
The older of these materials is parchment, which was used virtually exclusively throughout the thirteenth and well into the fourteenth century. Paper, which generally came into use among the Slavs during the fourteenth century as elsewhere in Europe, will be discussed at greater length later in this chapter as well as throughout the disserta tion .
Alphabet: among the Eastern Orthodox Slavs, two specific types of alphabets may be found. The older, it is generally believed, is glagolitic, which dates from the time of the mission of Sts. Cyril and Methodius to the
Slavs. The younger, which probably came into use in the tenth century, is the cyrillic, as we now refer to it.^
*In parts of Russia (Novgorod is especially well known for this),!* for example, another material— birch bark— was also used as a writing surface. Epigraphic ma terial (e.g., stone, metal, wood) is not considered here although it can be quite helpful in certain aspects of pa leographic analysis. Here, though, the author of the dis sertation is limiting himself to writing materials that may be bound, and specifically, to parchment and especial ly paper. 17
Script: among the Eastern Orthodox Slavs, seve ral types of cyrillic script may be found. These include
uncial, semi-uncial, cursive, typographic, and the "civil" script that came into use during the time of Peter the
Great of R u s s i a . *0
Language: the oldest documents primarily re
flect the literary language as established by Saints Cyril and Methodius, which is usually referred to as Old Church
Slavic.* However, since language evolves quickly, more and more "local" features began to be reflected in this standard literary language. At this point reference is usually made to Church Slavonic of various recensions, i.e., forms showing features typical of languages such as
Russian, Bulgarian, or Serbian (traditionally, one refers to these three recensions, although other scholars may in clude additional recensions).12
Orthography: the language is usually reflected
in orthography. Just as is true of the language, it too may reflect changes. "Correct" orthography is related to established norms in a given literary language.13
Ornamentation: just as the language evolved, so too did the style of ornamentation. The various styles, in their order of appearance, are Byzantine, teratological,
♦Some refer to Old Church Slavic (the accepted term in the United States) as Old Bulgarian or Old Macedonian, with the later Church Slavonic stage then regarded as "middle Bulgarian”, for example. 18
neo-Byzantine, Balkan (with later influences from Baroque,
the typographic, etc.)**'*
Internal evidence: references to historical
personages, historical events, or historical developments
provide a date before which a given manuscript could not
have been written. Other internal evidence may depend upon
developmentsin certain genres, or on changes in the rules
for liturgical services, etc.*®
External evidence: this may include such ele
ments as the type of binding or other external features
(for example, the type of ornamentation on the binding,
the types of clasps used, the manner in which the quires
are sewn, etc.). In order for such external evidence to
be utilized for dating, it is necessary to ascertain these
elements to be contemporary to the manuscript.
Thus, for example, if an undated manuscript is writ
ten on parchment, and reflects the etymological position
of phonemes with strong regularity, in glagolitic or an
early uncial cyrillic script, with ornamentation of the
Byzantine style, it is probably of the oldest, or Old
Church Slavic period and was copied in the tenth or ele
venth centuries. Only by further comparison to other
manuscripts known or believed to be from this same period
of time may the dating be further narrowed. The probable
place of writing may only be inferred on a general basis
by linguistic or orthographic features which are known to be more typical of certain regions during certain periods. 19
The standard problem is that unless there is inter nal evidence which would more narrowly define the probable range of time during which a manuscript could have been copied, all the paleographic features and elements dis cussed above only provide a general range. They are rare ly specific enough to date a manuscript precisely.
Paper, which apparently came into more regular use among the Slavs during the fourteenth century, provides one additional feature that has been most helpful in nar rowing down the probable range of time during which a ma nuscript was produced. This feature is the presence of watermarks.
When paper was made a "mark" was left in its texture which is usually clearly visible when the paper is held up to the light. When a manuscript written on paper has a date provided by the scribe or scribes, the time of use of the paper on which it is copied is also established.
By comparing the types and degrees of similarity of the watermarks in an undated manuscript or document to dated samples of watermarks, a researcher has an opportu nity to determine more narrowly the probable time of use of the paper (or types of paper). If this probable time of use is not contradicted by other paleographic evidence, it provides the approximate date of the manuscript. Thus, 20
of all the elements used in a paleographic analysis, it is
types of paper (i.e., watermarks) that provide the most
precise dating, even if the dating represents, in fact, a
range, for example, the "third quarter of the fourteenth
century".*
Watermarks are also known in various languages as
"filigrans" (from Latin, filua = "thread" and granua -
"grain", cf. the French, "filigrane", Italian, "filigrana",
English, "filigree"), because of the manner in which they were produced. In Slavic either cognate is usually used,
thus it can be watermark (German, wasserzeiche) = "vodeni znak" (Serbian), "voden znak" (Bulgarian) or "vodfhnoi znak" (Russian), or "filigran" (all three).
The scholarship of the study of watermarks in paper, particularly for paleographic purposes, is often referred to as "filigranology". This is particularly true in Europe.
*Paper cannot be used as the only factor in estab lishing the date, since there is no absolute guarantee that older paper was not utilized during a later time. However, the chances of older paper being available in sufficient quantity to produce an entire codex at a later time would not be high. Still, this is the reason that paper is not the exclusive, but only usually the limiting, factor in dating. The situation is more difficult when attempting to date an edict, for example, which is often only one leaf in size. The opportunities for a forgery to go unnoticed (due to the probable date of the paper) would be greater. 21
B. Watermark Studies and the Slavs
Apparently, the first work to study watermarks for paleographic purposes of comparison and dating of undated documents was by a Russian, Ivan P. Laptev. His Opyt v starinnoi russkoi diploaatike, ili sposob uznavat’ na bu- joage vreaib, v kotoroe pisany starinnye rukipisi, ("An At tempt in Old Russian Diplomatics, or, A Means with Paper to Determine the Time when Old Manuscripts were Written ")
St. Petersburg, 1824, began the development of watermark studies. This work includes 28 tables and 150 examples of watermarks.
Shortly afterwards, in 1844, a second work which re presented an album of watermarks in the fullest sense of the concept, was published in Moscow. It, too, was pub lished by a Russian, Kornilii la. Tromonin, under the ti tle, Znaki piscbei bumagi. Iz" Pasnenilh znakov, vidiayfth v piscbei buaage, posredstvom kotorylch aozhno uznavat’, kogda napisany ili napecbatny kakie-libo knigi, graamoty, risunki, kart inki i drugie starinnye i nestarinnye del a, na kotorylrh ne oznacbeno godov ("Marks in Writing Paper. A
Clarification of Marks Seen in Writing Paper, by which
Means it is Possible to Determine the Date of any Book,
Edict, Drawing, Picture or any other Old or More Recent
Work in which the Date is Not Indicated").
This work began a tradition of publishing albums of dated watermarks for paleographic purposes. One of the 22 highlights in this regard is the set of albums published in 1907 by the Swiss scholar of paper, Charles M. Briquet.
His work, which includes over 16,000 watermarks in paper dated 1282 to approximately 1600, is considered a classic reference tool.18 others, too, have produced albums that either pertain to a certain period of time,18 to the paper mills of a specific region or country,20 to a certain
"ge nre" (e.g., watermarks of animals),21 or to a specific type of watermark (e.g., "anchors").22 Still others have produced important studies of paper and watermarks, but in such a manner that their use is somewhat limited, in that the watermarks were not reproduced in their actual size.23
Thus, there is a 150 year history of the study of paper in an attempt to date undated manuscripts which are copied on paper. Much of this history involves the Slavs.
While there has been a certain amount of progress in the understanding of the possibilities and limitations of the use of paper to date such manuscripts, much of the discus sion has also centered on the means by which the water marks should be copied and reproduced in albums. (I do not mean to imply that such discussions are unnecessary.)
The relevant aspects of this discussion will be addressed later in this dissertation.*
*It is not necessary to provide a detailed descrip tion and analysis of the history of paper studies, as this is not the subject of the dissertation. The relevant 23
C. Brief History of Hilandar Monastery
The first reference to Hilandar Monastery, in the year 1076, is to Hilandar as a Greek Monastery. At that time it was empty of monks. D. Bogdanovid indicates that it was founded most likely well before then, and he pro vides a reference from the year 985 to a Georgios Helanda- rios. He suggests that the monastery probably was named after Helandarios.24 other interpretations for the name suggest a reference to the Greek words for "one thousand"
— hilloi and antara , "fog", or antres, " m e n " . 25
Through an edict of the Byzantine Emperor Alexios
III, in 1198 Hilandar was given to the Serbs to rebuild and be their own. At that time Hilandar was also granted the right to be a fully independent monastery, having the same status as Iveron (a Georgian monastery at that time, which in 1357 became Greek) and Amalfitan (an Italian mo nastery which no longer exists).26
The monastery was restored by the former ruler of
Serbia, Stefan Nemanja (as a monk and saint, Simeon) and two of his sons, St. Sava (Rastko, as a prince and before tonsure), and King Stefan the "First-Crowned". In 1198
Hilandar also became the special ward of the Nemanji£ dy nasty (which ruled Serbia until 1 3 7 1).27
aspects of this history, and especially its future, will be considered at various points in further chapters of this dissertation. 24
The Nemanji£ rulers, and especially certain of them, were very generous to Hilandar, as may be seen by the num ber and contents of edicts granting them specific rights and privileges. Many of these are still in the library of
Hilandar Monastery.28
The generosity and privileges granted to Hilandar, however, were not limited to only the Nemanji£ dynasty or to Serbian rulers and Serbs (although it has always been supported by Serbian rulers). It was also supported by the people even when there were no rulers. It is still supported today by Serbs living in Yugoslavia as well as many countries throughout the world. However, in differ ent periods of time it was supported by Moldavian and
Wallachian princes and people, by the Bulgarians, and by many of the Russian rulers and people.29
Hilandar Monastery was especially wealthy and influ ential during the fourteenth century,* a time when the
Serbian empire increased in size and power. It was during this time that Hilandar was fortunate to have a number of very capable leaders. V. Mosin particularly emphasizes the role of Abbot Gervasii, during the period 1317-1336.30
Several other abbots, however, were also quite capable and did much to further Hilandar Monastery during the four teenth century (especially from approximately 1320-1370).
*Hilandar did have a series of misfortunes at the very beginning of that century when the monastery was attacked on several occasions and under siege for a period of time.31 25
It is likely that Hilandar Monastery always had a
certain number of manuscripts, necessary for the different
liturgical services. It is also likely that it had its
own library. D. Bogdanovi6, for example, feels that a
number of the Slavic manuscripts still in the library of
the monastery were there from virtually the time these
manuscripts were copied. He notes the Novgorod Sticherarion
(Hilandar manuscript #307) and the Kiev Irmologion (Hilan
dar manuscript #308), datable from the end of the twelfth
and the beginning of the thirteenth century, respectively,
and Hilandar manuscript #313, an Old Testataent Lectionary
(Parimeinik), whichis Serbian and dates from first half of
the thirteenth century. These manuscripts, however, were
likely produced elsewhere and then sent to Hilandar to
form the core of its growing library.32 The first manu
script known to have been produced in Hilandar was the Ty-
pikon of St. Sava, which dates from 1198. Other manu
scripts, though, would probably have been produced there
at approximately the same time, as more and more monks be
gan to join the monastery.
It is also interesting to note that Hilandar’s li brary contains the oldest known Serbian manuscript written on paper. This is Hilandar Slavic manuscript #387, the
"Teachings of St. Theodore the Studite", which dates from the middle of the thirteenth century and is remarkable because it is copied on so called "bombasine" paper. This paper was generally regarded as "silk and cotton" paper, 26 hence the term "bombasine", from the Latin and Greek boabyx
(= "silkworm"). It is, in fact, made of hemp, but has the texture of silk or cotton and thus it is easy to understand why scholars even in this century refer to it as "bomba sine"* and why the term is accepted.33 This paper was not produced in Italy, but is of Arab origin.34
While it may be difficult to indicate the scope of activity and the number of scribes involved in the scrip torium of Hilandar Monastery during the thirteenth century, it is during the fourteenth century that the contours of such activity become clearer.
D. Bogdanovi£ lists a number of scribes/copyists as sociated with Hilandar Monastery during the fourteenth century. Their names include Damifan, Iov, Dionisie, Iosif,
Marko, Atanasie, Dorofei (Dorotei), and Fimofei (Timotei).
Their manuscripts are found either in Hilandar Monastery or in a number of European centers such as Berlin, Lenin grad, Moscow, Paris, Vienna.35 In some cases it is known how they came to be there, in others it is not.36 While the number of manuscripts these scribes/copyists created
*The author of this dissertation had an occasion in 1971, during his first research trip to Mount Athos and Hilandar Monastery for the purpose of photographing a num ber of the Slavic codices in the collection, to actually hold and turn a number of the leaves of Hilandar Slavic Manuscript #387. The texture is remarkably like that of cloth and is unlike that of any of the other manuscripts in the collection. The leaves are soft and lie flat easily when opened. Probably because of the presence of this paper, the manuscript is rather heavy. The manuscript ap pears to be in very good condition. 27 is substantial, the scriptorium of Hilandar Monastery should by no means be limited to these names and the known manuscripts that are still in existence, for there were certainly others which have since perished or which have not yet been discovered.
Table 1 on the next page shows a list of fourteenth- century parchment manuscripts that are in the library of
Hilandar Monastery and are known to have been produced in the local scriptorium. Table 2 (page 29) shows a list of fourteenth-century paper manuscripts that are in the li brary of Hilandar Monastery which are known to have been produced there.37 28
TABLE 1
XIV CENTURY PARCHMENT HILANDAR MANUSCRIPTS PRODUCED IN HILANDAR MONASTERY
#9 Roman /I/, in Hilandar* #10 Monk Dionisiie, in Hilandar #14 Monk Feoktist, probably in Hilandar #47 Gervasif^, in Hilandar #126 Damif&n, probably in Hilandar #158 Feodul, in Hilandar (XIII Century)** #160 Roman /I/, probably in Hilandar #297 Teodul, in Hilandar, manuscript missing from Hilandar since 1897
*There are two monks who were scribes in Hilandar Monastery, each of whom had the name Roman. For this rea son the older in time of the two is referred to as Roman /I/, while the other is referred to as Roman /II/ (see next page). **A portion of Hilandar manuscript #158 is from the first quarter of the XIV century and is written on unwa termarked or hemp paper of probably an older period (i.e., another example of "bombasine" paper). 29
TABLE 2
XIV CENTPRY PAPER HILANDAR MANUSCRIPTS PRODUCED INF HILANDAR MONASTERY
#48 - probable scribe, Fimofei, in Hilandar #79 - Roman /II/, probably in Hilandar #84 - monk Iov, in Hilandar #258 - I5v, in Hilandar #298 - Marko, in Hilandar (the manuscript is now in Belgrade) #381 - Iov, in Hilandar #390 - Dami fan, in Hilandar #392 - Iov, in Hilandar #453 - (Teo)fil* /manuscript is parchment and paper/
Hilandar Monastery reflects a number of the primary intellectual and spiritual movements of the fourteenth century. The primary of these was hesychasm, a spiritual movement of the third century which regained its popula rity and influence in the fourteenth century. Followers of hesychasm strove to reach an ideal state of "silence"
(i.e., "spiritual peace"). Meyendorff indicates that in the thirteenth and especially the fourteenth century this was often attempted by praying "ceaselessly" (usually re peating the "Jesus Prayer" until it is completely interna lized and repeated subconsciously throughout the remaining lifetime of a m o n k ) . 38 The hesychast movement and these 30 ideals, which had a profound impact on the culture of this and even later periods, are reflected in a number of manu scripts in the library of Hilandar Monastery. It is rea sonable to assume that Hilandar Monastery was one of the conduits of hesychasm to other parts of the Orthodox world.
This is also important because of the impact of he sychasm on the need for certain works and texts or the re vision of previously existing texts. The fourteenth cen tury is generally known for a vast revision of texts that took place at that t i m e . 39
The monks or scribes of Hilandar Monastery at this time also created original works, such as the "Life of St.
Simeon and Sava" or the "Life and Service to St. Peter of
Korish" by Teodosii (Teodosije) .40 Still another work was the revised and newly translated Typikon, by Roman /I/ of
Hilandar in 1331. This manuscript, according to D. Bogda- novi6, is now in Vienna.41
The changes in the Typikon prompted other revisions in previous texts, as well as the need for new o n e s . 42 Hi landar Monastery certainly took part in this process of changes, as well.*
*While probably not having been produced in Hilandar Monastery, it should be noted that the only extant codice containing all six known works of the Bulgarian hymnogra- pher Efrem was found in Hilandar Slavic Manuscript #342. The works of Efrem are typical of the second half of the fourteenth century, and reflect both the features dis cussed above. Thus, they are imbued with the spirit of hesychasm, with the normal tropes, typical of this move ment. On the other hand, they reflect changes in the genre 31
Hilandar Monastery, in all regards, was a highly im portant center of cultural activity during the fourteenth
century. Considering the significance of Hilandar Monas
tery to the Serbs and in Serbian history, to the Orthodox
Slavs, as well as to the history and culture of Mount
Athos, to its role in the development of orthography, li
terature, religious thought and practice, philosophy and
culture in general, to its role as both a repository and
distributor of manuscripts and books throughout the centu
ries,* any attempt to better understand the proper histo
rical place of this monastery is well justified. One of
of hymnography which were made possible by the change to the Jerusalem Typikon. This change generally took place around the year 1350.^3 The fact that Roman /I/ had al ready translated the Typikon in 1331, reflects Hilandar Monastery’s early role in this change and new translation of the Typikon. Perhaps it is not by coincidence that the only manu script containing all six known works of the hymnographer Efrem is in Hilandar Monastery’s library. The author of this dissertation believes that Efrem is an unknown Bulga rian, who probably lived and worked in or near the Bulga rian medieval capital, Turnovo, during ca. 1350-1390,^ H o w ever, it is also possible (though I feel not likely) that the thesis of D. Bogdanovic is correct, and that he is the same person as the Bulgarian born, Serbian Patriarch Je- frem (Efrem), who was a well-known hesychast of the same time period.While this might explain the presence of manuscript #342 in Hilandar Monastery, other explanations are also plausible. It could be suggested, for example, that the manuscript containing the works of Efrem was taken to Hilandar Monastery shortly around the time of the fall of the Bulgarian capital (1393), or even at some later point. *In its role as a distributor of books and manu scripts and the significance it attached to these type of materials, it is interesting to note the information which is found in Hilandar Slavic manuscript #525. This manu script, among other things, contains records of which books the ways in which we may attempt to do this is to better understand the activity and output of the scriptorium of
Hilandar Monastery.
In the ensuing chapters of this dissertation discus sion will focus upon a research method which, in the opi nion of the author of this dissertation, will enhance our understanding of the output and contribute to the efforts to reconstruct, at least in part, the scriptorium of Hilan dar Monastery. A number of manuscripts presently in the collection of Hilandar Monastery but unattributed to any scriptorium will be suggested for attribution as products of Hilandar Monastery. Thereby, for the first time as far as these manuscripts are concerned, more specific informa tion regarding them may be considered. The addition of these manuscripts as products of Hilandar Monastery will, in turn, provide more information regarding this important cultural center. And finally, the greater amount of infor mation provided should benefit other scholars in a number of possible future research studies.
and manuscripts were lent out, and of others that were "pawned" in order, for example, to pay taxes. It is also indicated in this manuscript that at the first opportuni ty, such "pawned" manuscripts were paid for and returned. ENDNOTES CHAPTER I
Ifi. F. Karskii, Slavfanskafa kirillovskaih paleogra- fiJh, (Leningrad: Akademifa Nauk SSSR, 1928, reprinted Moscow, 1979), p. 1.
^Lidiih P. Zhukovskaia, Razvitie slavfano-russkoi paleografii (v dorevol fhfhionnoi Rossii i v SSSR), (Moscow: Institut russkogo lazyka, Akademifa Nauk SSSR, 1963), p. 4.
^Christopher B. Coleman, The Treatise of Lorenzo Val la on the Donation of Constantine, Text and Translation into English, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1922), pp. 1-7.
^Zhukovskaia, Razvitie.... p. 12.
®For ^example, A. Gorskii and K. Nevostruev, Opisanie slavPanskikh” rukopisei Moskovskoi sinodal’noi biblioteki, I-III, (Moscow, 1855-1869). Reprinted as Monuaenta Linguae Slavicae Dialecti Veteris, Fontes et Dissertationes, (Wies baden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1964); A. Kh. Vostokov, Opisanie russkifch i slovenskilch rukopisei Rum fanfsovskogo Muzeuaa, (St. Petersburg, 1842); V. M. Undol’skii, unpublished ma nuscript Opyt slavfano-russkoi paleografii H i nauki opre- delfat* vremfa napisanifh rukopisei, pravil 'no i beglo chi- tat* onye (as quoted in Zhukovskaia, Razvitie.... p. 42); I. I. Sreznevskii, "Drevnie slavfknskie pamiatniki ftiso- vogo pis’ma (X-XIV vekov); Obschee povremennoe obozrenie," Sbornik statei chitannykb v otdelenii russkago lazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoi akademii Nauk, v. 3, (St. Peters burg, J1868); "Svedeniifc i zametki o maloizvestny£li i neiz- vestnykh pami’atnikalTh," Sbornik Otdelenii russkago Pazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk, (St. Petersburg, 1875, 1877), v. 5, pp. 1-392, v. 15, pp. 393-579; Drevnie pamiatniki russkago pis ’ma i Pazyka X-XIV vekov, obschee povremennoe obozrenie, 2nd ed. , (St. Petersburg, 1882); N. S. Lilchachev, Paleograficheskoe znachenie bumazhnyfch vo- dihnykh znakov, (St. Petersburg, 1891); A. I. Sobolevskii, Slaviano-russkafa paleografifh, (St. Petersburg, 1901, re printed 1908); P. A. Lavrov, Paleograficheskoe obozrenie kirilskogo pis*ma, (Petersburg, 1915); E. F. Karskii,
33 34
Slavianskaia...; otets Leonid, "Slaviano-serbski knigolchra- nilishcha na sv. Afonskoi gore", Chteniih Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk, (St. Petersburg, 1875, 1); M. N. Speranskii, Iz istorii russko-slavfanskiJfb liter at urnyfch svfazei, (Mos cow, 1960); V. N. Shchepkin, Uchebnik Russkoi paleografii, (Moscow: Obshchestvo Istorii 1 Drevnostei RossiiskiJch pri Moskovskom Universitete, 1918), and many others.
®For example, L. V. Cherepnin, Russkaia paleografifb, (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo politicheskoi lite- ratury, 1956); A. N. Perot's, "Rukopisi biblioteki Moskov- skogo universiteta, samarskikh bibliotek i muzeia i min- skikh sobranii", Opisani/a rukopisnyfth sobranii, 3rd ed. , (Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1934); N. B. Tikhomirov, et. al., Mu- zeinoe sobranie rukopisei (Gosudarstvennyi biblioteki im. V. I. Lenina), (Moscow, 1961); 0. A. Knfazevskaia, "K is torii russkogo lazyka v severo-vostochnoi Rusi v seredine XIV v. (Paleografichesko i foneticheskoe opisanie rukopisi Moskovskogo evangeliia 1358 g.)," Trudy Instituta lhzyko- znanifb AN SSSR, v. 8, pp. 107-177; L. P. Zhukovskaia, "Paleografifa", Paleograficheskii i lingvisticbeskii ana- liz novgorodskiJch berestfbnylch gramot, (Moscow, 1955); E. E. Granstrem, Opisanie russkileh i slavibnskiJrh pergamen- nykh rukopisei: rukopisi russkie, bolgarskie, moldovla- khiiskie, serbskie gosudarstvennoi publichnoi biblioteki im. M. E. Saltykova-Shchedrina, (Leningrad, 1953); D. S. Lilchachev, Tekstologiia: na materiale russkoi literature X-XVII vv., (Moscow-Leningrad, 1962); Golemiiht svfht na ruskata literatura, Issledovanifb i statii, (Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1976), and others.
^I. V. Jagic, Quattor evangeliorum Codex glagoliticus olim Zographensis nunc Petropolitanus, (Berolini, 1879); Marinskoe cbetveroevangelie s primechanifami i prilozbeni- fbmi. Pamfbtnik glagolicbeskoi pis’mennosti, (St. Peters burg, 1883); Psalterium Bononiense, (Vindobonae, Berolini, Petroj>oli, 1907); "Glagolichesko pis’mo", Enfsiklopedifa slavianskoi filologii, 3rd ed., (St. Petersburg, 1911), and others.
^Lj. Stojanovic, Katalog rukopisa i starib stampanih kniga. Zbirka Srpske kraljevske akadmije, (Belgrade, 1901); Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi, v. 1-4, (Belgrade, 1902- 1926); Katalog Narodne biblioteke u Beogradu, Rukopisi i stare stampane knjige, v. 4, (Belgrade, 1903); S. Petkovi6, Opis rukopisa manastira Krusedola, (Sremski Karlovci, 1914); P. Djordji6, Istorije srpske dirilice, (Belgrade, 1971); Dj. TrifunoviS, Srpski srednjovekovni spisi o knezu Lazaru u kosovskom boju, (Krusevac, 1968); 0. Nedeljkovi6, "Problem strukturnih redakcija staroslavenskog prijevoda Apostola," Slovo 22, (1972), pp. 27-40; L. Slaveva, "Za staroslovenskiot triod," Slovo 22, (1972), pp. 93-116; L. Cerni£, ”0 atribuciji srednjovekovnih srpskih £irilskih 35
rukopisa," Tekstologija srednjovekovnih Juznoslovenskih knjizevnosti. Naucni skup /14.-16. novenbra 2977./, (Beo grad: Srpska Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti, 1981), pp. 335- 425; "Pisari Gracani6kog /Lipljanskog/ Prologa-Mineja (Atribucija rukopisa kao mogucnost rekonstrukcije gracfe)," Arhiografski Prilozi I, (Beograd: Narodna Biblioteka Sr- bije, 1979), pp. 133-165 +• 1 unpaginated. V. Mosin, di- rilski rukopisi Jugoslavenske akademije, Opis I, (Zagreb, 1955); Paleografski album na Juznoslovenskoto kirilsko pismo, (Skoplje, 1966); Slovenski rakopisi vo Makedonija v. I-II, (Skoplje, 1971); D. Bogdanovi£, "Metod opisa ru kopisa u Arheografskom odeljenju Narodne Biblioteke SRS u Beogradu," Bibliotekar 20, (1968), pp. 361-390; Katalog Siriliskib rukopisa manastira Hilandara, (Belgrade: Srpska Akademija nauka i umetnosti, Narodna biblioteka SR Srbije, 1978); Inventar dirilskih rukopisa u Jugoslav!ji (XI-XVII veka), (Belgrade: Srpska Akademija nauka i umetnosti, in Zbornik za istoriju, jezik i knjizevnost srpskog naroda, I odeljenje, knj. 31), and many others.
^For example, B. tf^onev, Opis na rukopisite i staro- pechatnite knigi na Narodnata biblioteka v Sofiia, (Sofia: Diirzhavna pechatniff&a, 1910); I. Ivanov, Bulgarski starini iz Makedonifa, (Sofia: Durzhavna pechatnifsa, 1931, repub lished in facsimile edition, Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1970, as part of series, Istorichesko nasledstvo); B. Angelov, Iz starata bulgarska, ruska i srubska literatura, (Sofia: Vol. 1, 1958, 2, 1967, Vol. 3, 1978); K. Kuev, Azbuchnata molitva v slavfanskite literaturi, (Sofia: BAN, 1974); Sud- bata na starobulgarskata rukopisna kniga prez vekovete, (Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1986); B. Velcheva, "Uvod", Do- bromirovo evangelie, bulgarski pametnik ot nachaloto na XII vek, (Sofia: BAN, 1975), pp. 5-33; K. Ivanova, Bulgarski, srtibskii moldo-vla/chiiski kirilski rukopisi v sbirkata na M. P. Pogodin, (Sofia: BAN, 1981); A. Dzhurova, K. Stan- chev, M. fapundzhich, Opis na slavfhnskite rukopisi vdv vatikanskata biblioteka, (Sofia: Sviat, 1985); G. Popov, Triodni proizvedeniia na Konstantin Preslavski, (Sofia: Ban, 1985, in series, Kirilo-Metodievski studii, kn. 2); Kodov, B. Raikov, "Principi i metodi na opisvane na slavfanskite rukopisi s ogled na sustavfhne katalog na bul- garskite rukopisi ot X do XVII vek," Izvestifh na Narodna Biblioteka "Kiril i Metodii" 14 (1976), pp. 55-82; ifti. Ko dov, Opis na slavfanskite rukopisi v bibliotekata na Bul garska t a akademifa na naukite, (Sofia: BAN, 1969); tf*h. Kodov, B. Raikov, St. Kozhuharov, Opis na slavfhnskite rukopisi v bibliotekakta na Zografskifh manastir v Sveta gora I, (Sofia: Sviat, 1985), and many others.
^Regarding this and for an extensive bibliography on glagolitic, see P. Ilchev, "Glagolilsa," Kirilo-Metodievska enfhiklopedifa A-Z, (Sofia: BAN, 1985), pp. 491-509. 36
lORarskii, Slavianskai^i. . . . pp. 158-210.
1*A. V. Arfsiffrovskii, et. al. , Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste, Vol. I-VII, (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1953-78).
l^See, for example, Bogdanovic, Katalog.... p. 315.
Ivanova, "Pravopis, proizfhod i tekstova redak- f^ifk na slavfanskite rukopisi," Description et catalogage des manuscrits mSdidvaux, (Sofia: CIBAL, 1984, in series Balcanica III, Etudes et Documents), pp. 41-47.
l^A. Dzhurova, "Ukrasata na rukopisnata kniga kato problem na analitichniia opis i na kratkixli katalog," D e s cription et catalogage des manuscrits mediSvaux, (Sofia: CIBAL, 1984, in series Balcanica III, Etudes et Documents), pp. 25-34.
Matejic, Bulgarski fht khimnopisefs Efrem ot XIV vek: delo i znachenie, (Sofia: BAN, 1982), pp. 21-25.
l^ZhukovskafU, Razvitie.... p. 38.
H Tromonin *s Watermark Album: A Facsimile of the Moscow 1844 Edition, (Hilversum, Holland: The Paper Pub lications Society, 1965, in series Monuments Chartae Papy- raceae Historiam Illustrantia XI).
18C . M. Briquet, Les Filigranes, Dictionnaire Histo- rique des Marques du Papier des leur Apparition vers 1282 jusqu*en 1600, A Facsimile of the 1907 edition with sup plementary material contributed by a number of scholars, Edited by Allan Stevenson, I-IV, (Amsterdam: The Paper Publications Society /Labarre Foundation/, 1968).
l^A. A. Geraklitov, Filigrani XVII veka na bumage rukopisny/ch i pecbatnykh dokumentov russkogo proiz/chozhde- nilti, (Moskva, 1963); E. Heawood, Watermarks, mainly of the 17th and 18th centuries, (Hilversum, 1957); E. Lauce- vicius, Popierius Lietuvoje XV-XVIII a., Atlasas, (Vil nius, 1967); V. Mosin and S. Traljifi, Vodeni znakovi XIII i XIV vijeka, (Zagreb, 1957), and others.
Nikolaev, Watermarks of the Mediaeval Ottoman documents in Bulgarian Libraries, I, (Sofia, 1954): N. P. Likhachev, Bumaga i drevneisbie bumazhnye mel *nitsy v Mos- kovskom gosudarstve, (St. Petersburg, 1891); G. Eineder, The Ancient Papermills of the Former Austro-Hungarian Em pire and their Watermarks, (Hilversum, 1960), and others.
21f. de A. de Borafull y Sans, Los Animales en las Marcas del Papel, (Villanueva y Geltru /Barcelona/, 1910; V. MoSin and M. Grozdanovifi-Pajic, Agneau pascal, (Bel grade, 1967), and others. 37
22V. Mosin, Anchor Watermarks, (Amsterdam, 1973), and others.
23por example, M. Grozdanovic-Pajid, "Vodeni znak tri polumeseca," Bibliotekar 20, (Belgrade, 1968), pp. 527-550; V. Mosin and M. Pajid-Grozdanovid, "Vodeni znak 'kruna sa zvezdom i polumesecom’," Bibliotekar 15, (Bel grade, 1963), pp. 11-20, and others.
2^D. Bogdanovi6, V. Burid, D. Medakovi£, Hilandar, (Belgrade, 1978), p. 36.
2®M. Matejic, Holy Mount.... p. 28.
2®Bogdanovid, et. al., Hilandar.... p. 36.
27Ibid.
2®M. Matejic, Hilandar Slavic.... pp. 95-102.
2^M. Matejic, Holy Mount.... pp. 29-30.
2^V. Mosin and M. Purkovi6, Hilandarski igumani sred- njeg veka, (Skoplje, 1940) and Bogdanovic, et. al., Hilan dar. .., p. 44.
31m . Matejic, Holy Mount.... p. 29.
32uogdanovi6, et. al., Hilandar. . . . p. 50.
33i)ogdanovi6, Katalog. . . . p. 152.
34g. j. Labarre, A Dictionary of Paper and Papei— Making Terms, (Amsterdam: N. V. Swets & Zeitlinger, 1937), pp. 45-47.
35Bogdanovi6, et. al., Hilandar.... p. 50.
36m . Matejic, Holy Mount.... p. 32.
37Based on Bogdanovid, Katalog.... pp. 53-273.
3&I. F. Meiendorf, ”0 vizantiiskom isikhazme i ego roli v kul’turnom i istoricheskom razvitii Vostochnoi Ev- ropy v XIV v.," Voprosy istorii russkoi srednevekovoi li- teratury, (Leningrad: Nauka, 1974, in series Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury, 29), p. 292. Other works to consider are: K. F. Radchenko, Religioznoe i literaturnoe dvizhenie v Bolgarii v epokhu pered turefskim zavoevaniem, (Kiev, 1898), pp. 51-168; G. M. Prokhorov, "Isilchazm i obshchestvennaxa mysl* v Vostochnoi Evrope v XIV v.," Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literature 23, (Leningrad, 1968), pp. 86-108; Kl. Ivanova-Konstantinova, "Nxakoi momenti na 38 bulgaro-vizantiiskite literaturni vruzki prez XIV v. (Isi- khazmut i negovoto pronikvane v Bulgarixa)," Starobulgar- ska literatura I, (Sofia, 1971), pp. 209-242.
39For example, see P. A. Syrku, K istorii ispravle- niia knig v Bolgarii v XIV veke I (St. Petersburg, 1899); I. Duichev, "Turnovo kato politicheski i dulOioven tsentur prez kusnoto srednovekovie," Bulgarsko srednovekovie, (So fia, 1972), pp. 427-431; A. E. Tachiaos, "Le monachisme serbe de Saint Sava et la tradition hesychaste athonite," Hilandarski zbornik I, (Belgrade, 1966), pp. 83-89, and others.
49Bogdanovi6, et. al., Hilandar.... pp. 52.
41Ibid., p. 53.
43see, for example, P. Matejic, Bulgarskifat.♦.. pp. 22-24.
43Ibid., p. 23.
44Ibid., p. 25.
4®Bogdanovi6, "Pesnicka tvorenija...", pp. 110-115. CHAPTER II
MANUSCRIPT ATTRIBUTION THROUGH PAPER: METHODOLOGY
The normal purpose of paper investigation in paleo
graphy is to date undated manuscripts.* Other than the rare situation in which older paper is being used at a much later time, the paper generally provides the most specific possible dating for such undated manuscripts (and
of course, it should be used in combination with the other elements of paleographic investigation).
In order to date the paper, researchers rely on com parisons of the watermarks in the paper to published water mark albums, reference sources compiled in order to pro vide information on paper and its dating. By finding a source of comparison for the type of watermark being exa mined and then determining the degree of the similarity of this watermark to one in the source album (where the paper/ watermark has already been dated), one may suggest a dating
^Although it is unusual, the paper may sometimes es tablish a date different from that given by a scribe: Hi landar Slavic manuscript #211 has a scribal date of 1762, but the paper on which it is copied has the date 1780 (probable "use" date = 1782) in the paper and in fact this date forms part of the watermark.^
39 40 for the paper in the given manuscript being dated; i.e., generally, undated documents are dated by dating the paper on which they are written.
Thus, traditional paleographic use of paper investi gation was able to provide the probable dating for 113 of the 114 paper manuscripts housed in the library of Hilan dar Monastery that are known to have been copied during the fourteenth century (one manuscript, #470, is itself dated by the scribe, 1355). This is the typical use of paper (watermark) analysis in paleography.
# * *
This author proposes a different type of analysis of the information which is provided by watermarks in paper.
This analysis is not related to the dating of manuscripts, but to a hypothesis of the author that paper may be used to identify, in certain cases and under specific circum stances, the probable scriptorium in which the manuscript was produced.
This hypothesis is based on an awareness that when a scribe has indicated where a given manuscript was produced, or when a scribe is known to have been associated with a given location and scriptorium, we can also be certain that the types of paper on which such manuscripts were copied were also present in the monastery. To put it simply, the 41 paper in such manuscripts is localized to a specific srip-
t or 2 urn.
This information regarding the paper, then, may be of potential importance beyond its traditional use in dating, for it offers at least one other element for com parison. It is not only the "hand" or "school" of the scribe/scribes or the type of ornamentation in a manuscript that may be com- pared for attribution through paleographic study, but the paper itself which was used in a given ma nuscript .
A methodology to compare, then, the paper found in a group of manuscripts from a given period had to be deve loped in order to show what relationships, if any, existed among the different types of paper in these manuscripts.
If the hypothesis of the author of the dissertation is correct, then it is likely that for a number of manu scripts a direct relationship among the different types of paper in a collection will be shown. This would be espe cially true for a collection that is organic., i.e., a col lection in whichat least a portion of the manuscripts were produced locally. (Finding a potential relationship among the manuscripts/paper of a non-organic collection, such as that found in a typical library where items were brought together in an irregular and often haphazard fashion, is, unfortunately, less likely.)
Finding such a relationship would be of importance
in a number of areas, but especially if the strength of 42 the evidence is such as to suggest the probable place of production of a manuscript; in effect, the paper would pro vide the primary impetus for attribution to a scriptorium.
As noted, the bulk of the manuscripts from the four teenth century that are in the Hilandar Slavic Manuscript
Collection are ''orphans" and it is not clear where they were produced. Because of the existence of approximately
2,000 tracings of watermarks from this collection, a unique opportunity is presented to evaluate an entire collection in terms of the paper in that group of manuscripts with the specific purpose of suggesting attribution and thereby increasing the number of manuscripts associated as products of Hilandar Monastery.
It should be noted that such an opportunity to study in a synthetic manner a wide range of paper found in one collection lends itself to a number of studies, including: the study of the source of paper found in locally produced manuscripts; the study of the number of types of paper found in locally produced codices and their variety during different periods of time; the study of dated manuscripts and "dated" paper (paper in which the watermark contains a date), in order to determine the "use" date of such paper in a given scriptorium; and other such paper investigations that rely on the availability and analysis of a sufficient ly large body of intrinsic evidence.
What follows is limited to the research of that paper found in the Hilandar Monastery Slavic Manuscript 43
Collection that is dated fourteenth century for the speci fic purpose of determining whether and in which manner paper may provide clues to those manuscripts that were produced in the Hilandar scriptorium. However, the other avenues of research mentioned above will be noted also (at a later point in this work), again in reference and limi ted to the fourteenth century and Hilandar Monastery.
These and other research areas, though, are not the pri mary focus of this study.
The first step in the procedure was to identify the number of potential manuscripts that were to be involved in the study. An analysis of the information provided in the two existing recent* descriptions of the Hilandar Sla vic Manuscript collection, together with information on the probable dating of items in this collection which was provided by P. Matejic (in Watermarks..♦). showed that 141 of 959 manuscripts** in the total collection were dated as
*M. Matejic, Hilandar (1976) and Bogdanovi6 Katalog (1978) are referred to here. The manuscripts were earlier described by Sava Hilandarac (1896, 1908).2 His descrip tions no longer reflect the full extent of the Hilandar Slavic Manuscript collection as it is now found in the mo nastery. **Here, "manuscript" refers to any handwritten docu ment in Hilandar Monastery's manuscript collection that has its own unique identification number. In a number of cases, the manuscript is represented by only one leaf, since it is, in effect, a fragment of some other codex. 44 having been produced some time during the "fourteenth cen tury”. Of this number, 114 manuscripts were entirely or partially* on paper (the other twenty-seven were parchment manuscripts, and had no paper of the fourteenth century).
This group of 114 manuscripts, thus, became the potential total corpus of the study. (See Appendix A for a complete list of the fourteenth-century manuscripts in the Hilandar
Monastery Slavic Manuscript collection.3)
Of this number, subsequent research showed that for
11 no information on the paper was available,** and for 1 that the information available was of little use due to the state of the watermark tracings.*** Therefore, the
The significance of this study to fragments specifically will be underscored at a later point in the body of this work. The archives of the monastery are not considered in this work. In both the aforementioned descriptions, reference is made to 830 items in the collection. However, a number of "items" actually consist of groups of unrelated frag ments. Thus. the actual number of separate manuscripts is higher (959).4 *Disregarding the paper that might have been used as lining when a parchment manuscript was re-bound, and which would take the study out of the limits of the fourteenth century, certain manuscripts from the fourteenth century were either copied in part on parchment, in part on paper, or were compiled using both materials at some point in the fourteenth century. For example, see #453 in the Hilandar manuscript collection.5 **A11 11 are fragments consisting of a single leaf of paper and the watermark is not shown (because it is found on another portion of the paper). ***Reference here is made to Hilandar manuscript #615. Occasionally, when the original leaves were folded, cut and bound, the watermark portion of the paper would be located inside the binding, thus making tracing and iden tification of the watermark virtually impossible. It is for this reason that a number of watermarks which might 45
total number of fourteenth-century paper manuscripts in
the Hilandar collection that were utilized in the study was 102. They represent some 50,000 pages. (See Appendix
B at the end of this dissertation for a complete list of
the fourteenth-century manuscripts in the Hilandar Monas
tery Slavic Manuscript Collection that are included in
this study.®)
It was decided to conduct the analysis in a "blind"
fashion, i.e., without first organizing the information
according to the likelihood of finding "identical" paper.
In effect, this signified determining groups of watermarks
in which one might find the same paper, but disregarding
any watermark album references for each watermark. This was done in order to avoid being subconsciously influenced by the previous identification of the watermark and any
specific knowledge regarding the manuscript in which the watermark or watermarks were found.
A total of 74 specific types, in different varia
tions, (e.g., "Letter A", "Bow and Arrow", "Flask", "Hun
ter's Horn, etc.) of watermarks were found. They were
represented in a total of 473 watermarks consisting of at
least 538 pieces*.?
otherwise have been part of the study could not be taken into consideration. The relative number (only 26) of such watermarks is small for the fourteenth-century manuscripts in this collection.® *As mentioned above, the manner in which the paper 46
The next stage of the study involved the actual com parison of the tracing of each watermark to each other wa termark within the same group— e.g., each watermark repre senting "Letter A" to all other watermarks representing
"Letter A". The process was lengthy and involved grouping the watermarks by each type,* and then actually comparing each tracing to each other similar tracing. As the water marks were compared, they could be divided into smaller sub-groups of watermarks that showed a strong likelihood of being from the same paper. These groups were then even more closely examined to see whether it was possible to come to the conclusion that they, indeed, represented the same paper.
It should be noted immediately that this procedure of comparison is doubly subjective: first, because the watermark represented is a tracing drawn by hand; and second, because the human eye is used to compare these tracings.
was folded, cut and bound often affected the watermark. Thus, it is possible that the paper in a manuscript never reflects the complete watermark (in one "piece”), but only different portions of it. However, by placing these por tions together, one is able to compile the complete water mark. This is the reason that the numbers above reflect ing the total number of watermarks and the number of "por tions" that they were found in are different. The analy sis was conducted in such a manner that it is not likely that portions of different watermarks were inadvertantly considered as the same watermark. *The tracings are currently grouped by manuscript number. However, it should also be kept in mind that the re
presentation of the watermark is a tracing of what the re
searcher (M. Matejic) could discern at the time. It is
not a freehand drawing. Regarding the second aspect of
subjectivity, previous years of research of this collec
tion by the author of the dissertation have developed a
sense in him of areas of difficulty encountered when trac
ing and identifying given watermarks from this collection.
Thus, there is an awareness of when it is likely for cer
tain watermarks or portions of watermarks to be more or
less easily traced. In part this is based on the actual
configuration of the watermark and the likelihood that it was recognized and in some way "meaningful", and in part
on the complexity of the watermark itself. In addition, whether or not the watermark is covered with text would
also make a difference in its discernability to one making
a tracing.
In regard to this aspect, since it is central to
justifying the identification of paper as "identical", the
process of comparison of the tracings was quite rigorous.
All aspects in two different tracings from two different manuscripts needed to show as exact and identical a rela
tionship to each other as was reasonable given the circum
stances under which the tracings were made and the physi
cal condition of the manuscripts involved. This was true
for all three components that comprise a watermark: (1)
configuration of the actual watermark, (2) the chain-lines, 48
(3) the laid-lines. Thus, the distance between chain- and laid- lines had to be the same in both tracings. The con figuration of the watermark had to be the same, as well.*
However, depending on the specific circumstances within the body of the manuscript (location of the water mark within the manuscript and the extent and type of writing on the paper), it was not always possible for the exact same extent of the configuration to be copied. For example, in the watermark known as "Pear", the tracings show one specific "pear” that sometimes has a "flower" portion shown on the bottom of the pear. Four examples of this type of watermark were found in four different manu scripts (see Figure 1, p. 51). In two cases the pear showed this "flower" portion, in two it did not. Despite the similarities, it is not believed that in all four cases it is the exact same watermark and that the paper is, in fact, identical. The reason for this, even if we assume that a portion of the watermark in two of the cases was not seen, is that they are not identical in all other aspects. In the two watermarks without the flower portion
*This, however, depended on the complexity and other factors regarding the watermark. Certain watermarks in a small "genus" are found in only a small number of varie ties, each of which may be quite distinct. Other water marks of a given type are found in great number with small differences among them. For the first group (more unique) some allowance for differences could be made, while in the second group (more popular or frequently found types of watermarks) little or no allowance for differences in the tracings could be given. 49 the chain-lines are identical. The chain-lines are also identical in the other two watermarks. However, the two sets of chain-lines in each group do not correspond suffi ciently to each other.*
Were it not for the difference in chain-lines (which are usually quite distinct in paper) it might be possible to assume that in two manuscripts the "flower" portion was not distinct and was therefore not copied. (See Figure 1 on page 51.)
However, in a similar situation where portions of a watermark were discerned, but the watermark in its entire ty was not traced, a different assumption could be made.
This circumstance probably occurred when it was not clear what the watermark represented. Certain watermarks are obvious in what they represent, many are not, especially when viewed through the text.
In such a situation all portions of the tracing should be identical to all portions in another tracing, where these portions coincide. There should be no signi ficant portion which does not coincide and which would therefore prevent identifying the watermarks as having come from the same paper.
*Mo5in-Tralji6 as well as Briquet only show a few distinct types of "pear". The most popular type was a pear with two leaves. This specific type of "pear", with out any leaves, is rare (only four shown, and only one is in any way similar to the pear watermark found in the Hi landar codices). 50
As an example of this, consider the "Helmet" water mark shown in Figure 2 (page 52). The actual configuration shows a helmet surmounted by a lion. Unless one already knows this, it is difficult to determine from what can be discerned in the paper. In this case all portions actual ly traced correspond sufficiently, even though not all portions were discerned.
The complexity of the watermark was also taken into account. A relatively simple watermark ("Circle"), that has a distinct and known shape must be clearly and defi nitely identical in order for this to be suggested. A more complex watermark (e.g., the "Helmet") is allowed a certain flexibility in this study.
These then are the bases and assumptions involved in determining probable identical paper. Every attempt, in cluding conducting the research "blind" without reference to any other information available on the manuscripts in question, was made in order to reduce the subjective as pects of the comparisons and conclusions made. FIGURE 1
"PEAR” FIGURE
"HELMET 53
Table 3 on the next four pages is based on several years of research of the watermark tracings of the Hilan
dar Slavic Manuscript Collection that are available in the
Hilandar Research Library of The Ohio State University.
The Table provides the manuscript number in the Hilandar
Slavic manuscript collection, the number of different wa
termarks associated with each of these manuscripts, a brief description of each watermark*, an album reference**,
the folio number or numbers (in the case of fragments or portions of a watermark) and, most importantly, the possi ble location of paper in other manuscripts to which a wa
termark relates.
*A11 descriptions of watermarks are given according to Watermarks.... pp. 3-271, by P. Matejic. **It should be stressed here that at this stage of the research the album reference is simply a point of re ference. and that it is of little consequence whether the watermark being indicated bears a strong or weak degree of similarity to the album source. The only exception to this is the designation of "identical" to an album source. This will be discussed in a later chapter of this disser tation . 54
TABLE 3
PROPOSED RELATED PAPER IN XIV CENTURY MANUSCRIPTS HOUSED IN HILANDAR MONASTERY
MS.# #WMS TYPE OF WATERMARK ALBUM ID* folio # RELATES TO
19 9 Hunter's Horn 4907 9 392 19 9 Hunter's Horn 4913 19 254. 474. 760/1 19 9 cask ("Bar11"> 941 25 55 19 9 2 Circles with Cross 2076 ?? 55?, 3427. 392. 478 21 5 Sc i ssors 2586 7 180?. 422 48 14 unicorn 5929 13 258 48 14 un i corn 5932 176 265 55 6 2 Circles with Cross 2976 2 (fr.) 19. 342?, 392, 476 55 6 Deer 2313 6. 62 760/V 55 6 Cask ( "Bar i1") 941 16. 18 19 79 4 2 circles with Cross 19447 105 (fr. ) 470?, 476? 79 4 Crossbow 226 44 141? 80 3 Pear with 2 Leaves 4325 15, 17 471 L 27 S Pear with 2 Leaves 4340 1 128. 144, 257 L 27 6 Pear with 2 Leaves 4336 3 256. 257 L28 6? Pear with 2 Leaves 4340 2 127. 144. 257 L 32® 2 Deer B r .15557 3 616 L 41 1 Cross bow 226 3 79? I 42 7 "Latin" Cross 1324 2 145, 146. 147. 148? L 42 7 Letter "A" 5095 246 145?. 146. 610 L42 7 Unicorn (DB) 6028? _____ 810 .43 7 Clover 3927 17 454 143 7 "Lorraine" Cross 3590 152 257. 454 144 Pear with 2 Leaves 4340 187 127, 128. 257 L 45 4 "Latin" Cross (DB) 1324 _____ 142. 146. 147, 148 .45 4 Letter "A" (DB) 5095 ___— 142. 146. 610 .45 4 Lion (DB) 6104? _____ 146. 147 t48b B Letter "A" 5095 17 142. 145?. 147 L46 8 Lion 6104? 132 145?. 147 146 8 "Latin" Cross 1324 228 142. 145?. 147. 148 L46 8 Shield (DB) 524 _____ 644 (DB) L47 6 "Latin" Cross 1324 2 142, 145?, 146, 148
In the Table, all the data is based on the work, Watermarks. .. . pp. 3- 271, by P.Matejic. Br. is an abbreviation for Briquet (album source), M.-Tr. an abbreviation for Mo&in-Tra1j id (album source), DB for Bogda- novid and fr. for fragment.0
* Unless indicated otherwise (with Br.), all numbers refer to the two- volume set of albums by M.-Tr. * Prom the beginning of the XV century. b DB indicated that the watermarks for Hilandar ms. *146 were the same as for the older portions of *142. 55
TABLE 3 (continued)
PROPOSED RBLATBD PAPER IN XIV CENTURY MANUSCRIPTS HOUSED IN HILANDAR MONASTERY
MS.# #WMS TYPE OF WATERMARK ALBUM ID folio # RELATES TO
L 47 6 Lion 61047 19 145?. 146 148C 5? "Latin" Cross 1324 3 142. 145?. 146. 147 177 4 Pear with 2 Leaves 4402 21. 178 178 L 78 3 Pear with 2 Leaves 4402 122. 125 177 L 80 9 Griffin/Drason 4538 20(fr.) 422. 459 L 80 9 Sc issors 2588 I7(fr. ) 422. 21? 226 1 Crown 3207 2. 4 473. 610 254 12 Hunter’s Horn 4913 4 19. 474. 760/1 254 12 Compas s 3121/22 1 . 98 298 254 12 Horses’ Heads 2448 108 474 254 12 Pear 4240 222 420. 760/V? 254 12 "Stylized" Cross 3631 228 392 254 12 Circle with X 1854 239 398 255 3 Drason/Griffin 1046/1068 2 375.391,477.812.618 256 8 Pear with 2 Leaves 4336 25 127. 257 256 8 Letter "G" 5262 129 257 257 11 Pear with 2 Leaves 4336 20 127. 256 257 11 Pear with 2 Leaves 4340 97 127. 128. 144 257 11 "Lorraine" Cross 3590 110 143. 454 257 11 Letter "G" 5262 129 256 258 1 Unicorn 5929 3 48 265 9 Unicorn 5932 6 48 265 9 2 Circles with Staff 1978? 49 471? 270 6 Apple 4176 170 399 274 5 Pear 4258 40 398? 275 4 Ox-Head with X 1413 54 640 298 7 Compass 3121/22 1 254 298 7 Crossbow 316 262 474 299 9 Helaet 1774 80 398 342 2 2 Circles with Cross 2076 3 c DB indicated that the wateraarki for #148 were the sane as the older portions of #142 and #146. d DB indicated that #389 is a continuation and has the same watermarks as #388. 56 TABLE 3 (continued) PROPOSED RELATBD PAPER IN XIV CENTURY MANUSCRIPTS HOUSED IN HILANDAR MONASTERY MS.# #WMS TYPE OF WATERMARK ALBUM ID folio # RELATES TO 391 4 Drason/Griffin 1046/68 268 255.375.477.812.618 392 n 2 Circles with Cross 2076 6 19. 55?. 342?. 476 392 n Hunter’s Horn 4907 34 19 392 n "Stylised" Cross 3631 293. 436 254 392 n Pear 4240 432 476. 760/V? 396 10 3 Mounts with Cross 6321/22 19. 35 759/X 398 9 Helmet with Cross 1776 24 . 30 299. 388? 398 9 Circle with X 1854 85 254 398 9 Pear with 2 Leaves 4258 174 274? 399 7 A pp 1 e 4176 49 270 aos 10 Bel 1 3004 3 468? 420 4 Pear 4240 10 254. 760/V? 421 3 Cask ("Baril") 944? 158 473? 422 12 Helmet 1788/87 96 454 422 12 Sc i ssors 2586 107 21?. 180 422 12 Sriffin/Draeon 4538 159 180. 459 453 1 P 1 ower (DB ) 3968 _ _ _ 474?. 644? 454 7 Helmet 1786/87 7. 11 422 454 7 Clover 3927 17. 58 143 454 7 “Lorraine" Cross 3590 48. 50 143. 257 455 2 2 Circles with X's 2160 4. 9 459 458 6 Unicorn 5883 15. 32 468 458 6 "Stylized" Cross 3625 106. 124 468 459 8 Sriffin/Draaon 4538 90 < fr .) 180. 455 459 8 2 Circles with X’s 2160 98(fr.) 455 462 5 Flower 4127 1. 2. 6 468? 168 8 "Sty 1ized" Cross 3625 a. 9 458? 468 8 Bel 1 3004 49-51 405? 468 8 Un i corn 5883 17S(fr.> 458 468 8 F 1ower 1854 186-187 462? 470 5 Key 2664? 9. 14 473? 470 5 2 Circles with Staff 1944? 65-66 79?. 646? 471 11 2 Circles with Staff 1978-80? 42 285? 473 7 Key 2664? 6 470? 473 7 Po t/Vase 6846 20 610 473 7 Crown 3207 116-117 226, 610 473 7 Cask (“Baril") 944? 187. 210 421? 474 10 Hunter’s Horn 4913 18 19. 254. 780/1? 474 10 Horses’ Heads 2446-48 62 254? 474 10 Crossbow 316 187. 390 298 475 7 F1ower 3968 18 453?. 644? 476 9 Hunter’s Horn 4853? 1 389 476 9 2 Circles with cross 2076 363 19, 55?. 342?, 392? 57 TABLE 3 (continued) PROPOSED RELATED PAPBR IN XIV CENTURY MANUSCRIPTS HOUSED IN HILANDAR MONASTERY MS.# #WMS TYPE OF WATERMARK ALBUM ID folio # RELATES TO 176 9 Pear 4240 365 392. 780/V? 177 5 Griffin/Dragon 1048/88 67 255.375,391.612,618 110 4 Vase/Pot 6848 5, 32 473? 110 4 Letter "A" 5095 11 . 18 142. 145?. 146 110 4 Unicorn 1046/88 2, 4, 20 142 (DB) H O 4 Crown 3207 120 228. 473 112 2 Dragon/Griffin 1046/68 45 255,375,391.477.618 516* 8 Deer B r .155 57 44 132 518 4 Dragon/Griffin 1048/68 52. 69 255,375.391.477.612 540 4 Ox-Head 1413 4 ( f r . > 275 S44 2 Shield (DB) 524 146 (DB) B44 2 Flower 3968 2 453?. 475? 546 5 Dragon 987/88 5, 8 739/1 I I 739/1 I I 1 Dragon 987/88 1 846 759/X 1 3 Mounts with cross 6321/22 1 396 760/1 1 Hunter's Horn 4913 2. 3 19. 254. 474 780/ I I I 1 Dragon/Gr1ff i n 1056-59 4 342? 780/V 3 Deer 2313 3, 4 55 780/V 3 Pear (DB) 4240 254?,392?,420?,476? * Both 61B and 132 are from the beginning of the xv century. Note: There are different degrees of s 1 mi 1a r 11 1es between the rela tionships indicated by (?) throughout this Table. In addition, no re ferences were made to watermarks which were only identified by OB, un less: 1) they were of a unique or virtually unique type and little/no confusion could have possibly taken place, or 2) in conversations with academician Bogdanovic he Indicated that he was certain he was able to recall the watermark as one he gave in his description of the Hllandar Slavic Manuscript Collection (Katalog...)■ 58 Once the proposed relationships among the paper found in the manuscripts housed in the Hilandar Monastery Slavic collection were established, it became necessary to interpret the results. The first problem encountered was presented by those relationships established based on in formation provided by Bogdanovic in his Katalog... for wa termarks which were not recorded by M. Matejic.* Since no direct physical comparison could be made, it did not seem possible to establish any relationships. However, D. Bogdanovic was present during a portion of the research conducted for this dissertation.** He was able to confirm the information provided in his Katalog... regarding certain watermarks, especially certain types which are virtually unique (and can thus be recalled from memory). He was quite positive, and on the basis of his confirmation, it was decided that in specific circumstances where there was already a probability of attribution *Based on the differences regarding watermarks indi cated by Bogdanovid and M. Matejic, it is clear that we can not assume that all watermarks were recorded for each ma nuscript. The researchers were interested in recording the watermark information for the purposes of dating the manuscripts, and both were pressed for time. **D. Bogdanovic was in Columbus, Ohio for a period of three months during 1985 as part of an exchange sponsored by the U.S. Information Agency. The methodology and cer tain of the results were discussed with him. He indicated his full agreement with the principle of comparative inves tigation of the paper. Not all results were available at that time and thus the validity and implications could not be discussed with him. 59 through the paper, this evidence could be taken into con sideration . The next and more crucial problem was to determine whether these interrelationships of paper in the Hilandar Monastery Slavic collection could establish any attribution of unattributed "orphan" manuscripts to the local scripto rium of the monastery. The first indication that manuscripts were present in the monastery’s collection that were produced there but for which there was no direct evidence of this fact came from D. Bogdanovic. In the course of his description of the Hilandar Slavic manuscripts, Katalog.... he had indi cated in several places, for example, that a given manu script was produced by the same scribe that had produced another manuscript, or that a manuscript was a continua tion of another manuscript.* He also indicated, in cer tain cases, that the watermarks for a given manuscript were the same as those found in some other manuscript.** Thus, he too had realized and actually pointed out that the paper found in different manuscripts was the same.*** *For example, see information for Hilandar codices #128, #153, #233 regarding attribution to a scribe, or for #389 that it is a continuation and has the same watermarks as #388.10 **For example, see information for Hilandar manu script #146 where it is indicated that the watermarks are the same as for the older portions of #142.^ ***D. Bogdanovid, in conversations with the present author in Columbus, indicated that he had drawn no further conclusions beyond what he percieved to be the exact same 60 The second indication came from the investigations of the Yugoslav researcher, Lucija Cerni6. In two of her pub lications, "Pisari Gracanickog /Lipljanskog Prologa-Mineja (Atribucija rukopisa kao mogucnost rekonstrukcije grade" and "0 atribuciji srednjovekovnih srpskih cirilskih ruko pisa", she presented evidence, and conclusions regarding the attribution of certain codices to certain scribes. ^ Many of these manuscripts and scribes were related to Hi landar Monastery. She had reached her conclusions on the basis of traditional paleographic research involving a comparison of scripts of the scribes involved. Her attributions made it possible, however, to study yet another aspect of the proposed methodology, i.e., whe ther an analysis of the paper of such manuscripts would show additional support for the attributions she made. This will be treated in a later chapter in this dissertation. The above mentioned scholars and works have shown beyond any doubt that manuscripts exist in the present Hi landar Slavic Manuscript collection that had been produced in Hilandar, but for which there was no direct indication of this on the part of a scribe or scribes. Yet, both watermark in different manuscripts. He stressed that his purpose in indicating this fact, as was his purpose in recording the watermarks, had been first to date the paper and second, in certain cases, to show a specific relation ship between two or more manuscripts. The idea of inves tigating all the paperin the collection for purposes of other attributions had, apparently, not occurred to him. He, at least, did not indicate that it had. 61 these researchers relied on traditional paleography and reference to other known scribes or manuscripts. This is the extent to which traditional paleography may go regard ing attribution of manuscripts to a scribe. The next step in the development of the methodology was to determine if still other manuscripts, those which could not as yet be attributed to any specific scribe, might be attributed to Hilandar Monastery's scriptorium. In order to do this it was now necessary to deter mine which of the manuscripts in the Hilandar Monastery Slavic collection are known to have been produced there/ elsewhere.These manuscripts were grouped together in the following manner: Group A, manuscripts known to have been produced in Hilandar and/or by scribes of Hilandar (who were most likely in Hilandar when the manuscript was produced); Group A}, manuscripts produced by scribes who are not yet identified as having belonged to Hilandar*s or some other scriptorium; and Group A£, manuscripts known or believed to have been producedin some scriptorium other than that of Hilandar Monastery. It was found that codices #48, #79, #84, #258, #298*, #381, #390 and #392 constitute Group A (see the information *Hilandar Slavic Manuscript #298 was copied in Hi landar Monastery by the scribe, Marko. It was one of three manuscripts taken on June 14, 1896 by Bishop Dimitrije from Hilandar Monastery (together with #297 and #435). Hilandar still has numbers reserved for all three, although the whereabouts of #297 and #435 are unknown and both are presumed lost in the fire in the National Library of Serbia 62 regarding relationship to Hilandar Monastery in Table 4. It was also found that manuscripts *148, #265, #393 and #453 constitute Group Aj (for further information see Table 5 on following page), and that one manuscript, #476*, it self constitutes Group A2 (see again Table 5). TABLE 4 GROUP A XIV CENTURY PAPER MANUSCRIPTS IN HILANDAR MONASTERY PRODUCED IN THE SCRIPTORIUM OF HILANDAR • • #48 probable scribe, Fimofei, in Hilandar #79 Roman /II/, probably in Hilandar #84 monk Iov, in Hilandar #258 - Iov, in Hilandar #298 - Marko, in Hilandar (ms. now in Belgrade) #381 - Iov, in Hilandar #390 - Damif^n, in Hilandar #392 - Iov, in Hilandar #453* - (Teo)fil’ /ms. is parchment and paper/ in 1941. Manuscript #298, however, had been outside the library when it burned to the ground. It is now #17 in the National Library of Serbia.14 The author of this dis sertation is extremely grateful to Academician Dimitrije Bogdanovic, who copied the watermarks in #298 and made them available to him in 1985. These watermarks could, thus, be included in this work. *D. Bogdanovi6 indicates that this manuscript was al most certainly produced in Hilandar. Support for this will be shown at a later point in this dissertation on the ba sis of the methodology discussed in the preceding pages. 63 TABLE 5 GROUP A j XIV CENTURY PAPER MANUSCRIPTS IN HILANDAR MONASTERY WITH KNOWN SCRIBES (UNCLEAR PLACE OF PRODUCTION) #148 - Io(an?)* #265 - "humble" Raiikoo #393 - commissioned by Patriarch Sava IV *N.B. D. Bogdanovi6 indicates that manuscript #148 is part of a set which includes manuscripts #142 and #146. GROUP A? XIV CENTURY PAPER MANUSCRIPTS IN HILANDAR MONASTERY POSSIBLY PRODUCED ELSEWHERE THAN HILANDAR) #476 - Priest Nil’, in "Rus..?" 64 When the results of the watermark comparison and analysis shown in Table 3 are compared to the manuscripts in Table 4, the relationships seen in Table 6 occurs. Ta ble 7 reflects the results shown in a comparison of Table 3 with that information in Table 5. Since the attribution of Lucija Cernid has added yet another group of manuscripts that are believed to have been produced by Hilandar scribes, it is necessary to take this information into account as well. Table 8 reflects further information on those attributed manuscripts that have been related to scribes of Hilandar. This set of manuscripts is referred to as Group B. Table 9 shows the relationships of the results indicated in Table 3 with the manuscripts in Table 8. Other manuscripts attributed by Lucija Cernid to scribes who are not known as scribes of Hilandar Monastery are referred to as Group and for comparative purposes are shown in Table 10, which also shows a comparison to the information in Table 3. *Hilandar Slavic manuscript #476 presents a special situation in this study. There is indication on the part of the scribe that it was copied in ”Rus...", which usual ly is a synonym for "Rusikon”, the Russian monastery, St. Panteleimon, on Mount Athos. The text of the scribal in scription reads (given in transliteration):^ sifb knigu s’pisa pop’ Nil’ u Rus trudom i otkupom svoim’ Bog’ da ga prosti v d'n’ strashnago suda iftiristova ot vechnilfh muk’. However, as will be shown later, it appears to be on paper that is found in Hilandar. This will be discussed at a later point in this dissertation. 65 TABLE 6 (Relationship of Table 4 to Table 3) GROUP A: KNOWN HILANDAR MANUSCRIPTS* HILANDAR MS. # RELATES TO 48 258. 265 79 470?. 476?. 141 84 258 48 298 254. 474 381 390 392 19, 55?, 342?, 476, 19, 254. 420. 760/V? 453 475?. 644? *See Table 4 for a list of manuscripts and scribes. See Table 3 for watermarks/paper and relationships. It may be assumed, based on internal evidence, that manuscript #453 was also copied in Hilandar Monastery. TABLE 7 (Relationship of Table 5 to Table 3) GROUP A} XIV CENTURY PAPER MANUSCRIPTS IN HILANDAR MONASTERY WITH KNOWN SCRIBES (UNCLEAR PLACE OF PRODUCTION) HILANDAR MS. # RELATES TO 148 142. 145?. 146, 147 265 48. 471? 393 GROUP Ag XIV CENTURY PAPER MANUSCRIPTS IN HILANDAR MONASTERY WITH KNOWN SCRIBES (PRODUCED OTHER THAN HILANDAR) HILANDAR MS. # RELATES TO 476 19, 55?, 342?, 392, 392. 760/V?, 389 67 TABLE 8 GROUP B XIV CENTURY PAPER MANUSCRIPTS IN HILANDAR ATTRIBUTED TO KNOWN HILANDAR SCRIBES OR MANUSCRIPTS16 #127 - Iov (1 of 3 scribes), in Hilandar (attribution by L. Cernic) #128 - in Hilandar, same primary scribe as #127 (attribution by D. Bogdanovic) #143 - Iov (1 of 3 scribes), in Hilandar (attribution by L. Cernid) #388 - Iov, in Hilandar (attribution by L. Cernic) #389 - Iov, in Hilandar (attribution by L. Cernic) #473 - Roman /II/, in Hilandar (attribution by L. Cernic) #474 - Iov, in Hilandar (attribution, L. Cernic/D. Bogdanovic) #475 - one of the scribes of #158 and #453* (attribution by L. Cernic) #644 - one of the scribes of #158 and #453* (attribution by L. Cernic) *Manuscript #158 is a parchment manuscript produced in Hilandar Monastery, and that is the reason that #453, #475 and #644 are also attributed to Hilandar. 68 TABLE 9 GROUP B MANUSCRIPTS ATTRIBUTED TO SCRIBES OF HILANDAR* HILANDAR MS. # RELATES TO 127 128. 144. 257. 256. 257 128 127. 144. 257 143 454. 257. 454 388 389?. 389? 389 388?. 388? 473 470?. 610. 421?. 226. 610 474 19. 254. 760/1?. 254. 298 475 453?. 644? 644 146. 453?. 475? *See Table 8 for attributions of scribes to manu scripts. See Table 3 for watermarks/paper and relation ships shown. 69 TABLE 10 GROUP B \ XIV CENTURY PAPER MANUSCRIPTS IN HILANDAR ATTRIBUTED TO OTHER KNOWN SCRIBES OR MANUSCRIPTS17 #419 - second scribe, Nikodim Mrcheta (attribution by L. Cernic) #477 - Danilafl (attribution by L. Cernic) GROUP B-|* (Relationship of Table 10 to Table 3) HILANDAR MS. # RELATES TO 419 477 . 255. 375. 391. 612. 618 *L. Cerni6 also indicates that manuscripts #145 and #147 were copied by one and the same s c r i b e . *8 70 Traditional paleographic methods and more specifi cally those related to the study of paper, have their gi ven strengths and precise limits when treating manuscripts for which very little data has been provided by their res pective scribes. In an attempt to go beyond the traditional analysis of paper (watermarks) used to date undated manuscripts, an explanation and justification for the hypothesis of manu script attribution through paper has been provided. A me thodology has also been proposed to discover the possible existing relationships between paper and manuscripts in the fourteenth-century Hilandar Monastery Slavic Manuscript Collect ion. Through the research of paleographers such as D. Bog danovic and L. Cernic it has been shown that manuscripts exist in the present Hilandar Slavic Manuscript collection that have no direct (scribal) evidence of provenance. The results of the study indicate that the methodo logy of paper comparison may support attribution through paper. If this is accepted as valid, it would be a consi derable departure and expansion of traditional paleogra phic investigations of paper (watermarks). 71 Tables provided in this chapter have shown the types of relationships that exist among the manuscripts and the paper of the manuscripts of the fourteenth century that are currently housed in Hilandar Monastery. In the next chapter a further elaboration of the me thodology as well as specific results of the study will be provided. Interpretations of these results will be sug gested, as well. ENDNOTES CHAPTER II lp. Matejic, Watermarks. . . . p. 72. 2sava Chilandarac, Rukopisy a starotisky Chilandar- skit Vestnik Krdlovske ceske spolecnosti nauk, Trida filosofska-historicka 1896, r. 6 (Praha, 1897):1-98; and in an unpublished manuscript dated 1908. See Bogdanovic, Katalog.... p. 15. ^This listing of the fourteenth century manuscripts in Hilandar Monastery’s Slavic Manuscript Collection is based on the following sources: M. Matejic, Hilandar...; Bogdanovic, Katalog...: and P. Matejic, Watermarks.... as well as on an unpublished inventory of the Hilandar Monas tery Slavic Manuscript Collection by P. Matejic. 4p. Matejic, unpublished inventory. ^Bogdanovic, Katalog.... p. 174. ^Information based on: M. Matejic., Hilandar.... pp. 6-62; Bogdanovid, Katalog.... pp. 59-258; and P. Mate jic, Watermarks♦... pp. 3-271. ^P. Matejic, Watermarks.... pp. 3-271. ^Information based on P. Matejic, Watermarks.... ibid. ^Here, reference is made to the following works: Bri quet, Les Filigranes.... Vol. I-IV, and Mosin-Traljid, Vodeni.♦.. vol. I. l^Bogdanovic, Katalog.... pp. 90, 95, 114, 153. H-Ibid. , p. 94. Cernifi, pp. 337-358. l^Based on Bogdanovid, Katalog..., pp. 59-258, and Cernid, pp. 337-358. l^Bogdanovid, Katalog.... pp. 128-129. 72 73 l^Ibid., p. 182. The microfilm of this manuscript, which is available in the Hilandar Research Library, was also verified. l^See, Bogdanovid, Katalog.... pp. 59-258, and espe cially Cernic, ”0 atribuciji...," pp. 337-358. •^Cernic, ”0 atribuciji..., " pp. 337-358. l^Bogdanovic, Katalog,..., pp. 93-94. CHAPTER III MANUSCRIPT ATTRIBUTION THROUGH PAPER: RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS The first concrete results of paper analysis and comparison of the Hilandar Monastery Slavic Manuscript Collection proposed and discussed in the previous chapter have to do with fragment identification. It might appear that arriving at the conclusion that the same paper was found in different manuscripts is based on only subjective determinations. However, the identification of fragments is one area in which it can be demonstrated that the de terminations are, in fact, objective and that the very same paper is demonstrably involved. This will be proven to be true because for two of the fragments in the collec tion, as will be seen, it can be shown to which specific manuscripts these fragments belong. When it was noticed that the watermarks in a number of manuscript fragments show a relationship to watermarks found in codices in the Hilandar collection, the logical next step was to analyze the manuscripts and fragments involved. After potential paper relationships were estab lished for a number of the fragments and manuscripts, a 74 traditional paleographic investigation was conducted in order to see whether it is possible to determine to which codices in the existing collection the fragments might be long. Table 11 shows these potential relationships: TABLE 11 PROPOSED RELATED PAPER (FRAGMENTS)* MS.# WATERMARK ALBUM ID fol. RELATES TO 739/1II Dragon 987/88 1 646 759/X 3 Mounts/Cross 6321/22 1 396 760/1 Hunter’s Horn 4913 2-3 19. 254. 474 760/III Dragon/Griffin 1056-59 4 342? 760/V Deer 2313 3-4 55 760/V Pear (DB) 4240 ? 254.392.420.476?? No direct relationship (a fragment belonging to a specific manuscript) could be established at this time for the fragments numbered 760/1, 760/III or 760/V on the ba sis of a subsequent paleographic analysis.** *0ne of the watermarks of fragment #760/V, "Pear", was not recorded by M. Matejic. However, based on the identification of this watermark by D. Bogdanovic to Mosin- Tralji6 #4240, it may be related to manuscripts #254, #393, #420 and #476.1 As mentioned earlier, there is only one watermark similar to this in the aforementioned album and thus it is unique. **At no time is it assumed that all manuscripts that were once produced in Hilandar Monastery have been located or are the subject of this dissertation. Over the course of centuries the vast majority of Slavic manuscripts once produced have been lost due to natural and other disasters, as well as through normal attrition. Thus, it is not re markable that these manuscript fragments, even if they are 76 However, after it was shown that fragment #739/111 had the same recension (Bulgarian, with Turnovo orthogra phy) and a script strikingly similar to that of manuscript #646, an attempt was made to see if it belonged to this manuscript.* It was established that fragment #739/111 does, indeed, belong to manuscript #646. Textually, it forms part of fragment #759/VII, which is itself part of the missing portion of this manuscript.2 Thus, the text is shown to be in continuo (see Appendix C for a reproduc tion of the portions of this manuscript that are involved in this determination) and there can be no doubt that this fragment belongs to this specific manuscript. The clue for this paleographic investigation was provided initially by the watermark analysis. Neither D. Bogdanovic nor M. Matejic had indicated that fragment #739/111 belonged to manuscript #646, nor could they be expected to considering the limited amount of time they had with the collection and the number of investigations they had to perform while researching the collection.** parts of manuscripts once produced in Hilandar Monastery, cannot be shown to belong to the known manuscripts of Hi landar (or presently, to any scriptorium). It has also not yet been shown whether there is reason to believe that all or some of these fragments were produced in Hilandar Monastery. Regarding this evaluation, see later in this dissertation. *The bottom portion of fragment #739/111 is damaged. **Were it for no other reason than the fact that the fragment and manuscript are separated by over 100 codices and groups of fragments, such an identification would have been surprising. Also, as mentioned above, it was not the It was also determined that fragment #759/X had the same number of lines (28), the same relative size (290x200 vs. 295x220 mm.), the same recension (Serbian, with Ras- cian orthography)* and a strikingly similar script to Hi landar manuscript #396. An attempt was therefore made to see if it belonged to this manuscript. In this case the probable identification was made somewhat easier by the fact that the fragment contained references to the life of St. Basil the Great, while manuscript #396 contained the Rules of St. Basil the Great— i.e., they seemed related at the o u t s e t . 3 D. Bogdanovic had also noted that fragment #759/X was the first folio of the thirty-ninth quire from whichever manuscript it had come.4 Therefore, it had al ready been indicated approxmately where to look in Hilan dar manuscript #396. The problem that remained, however, was that Hilandar Slavic manuscript #396 appeared to be complete, except for a few folia at the beginning. It had not previously been noted in the Katalog... of D. Bogdano vid that a later portion of the manuscript was missing.® specific goal of either of the researchers to identify fragments in the collection, but to research the entire collection. This took place over months or even years, which would have made recall of manuscripts and hands al most impossible. *D. Bogdanovic actually indicated that Hilandar frag ment #759/X is in Resavian (single-^er) orthography.® Late Rascian and early Resavian can be difficult to distinguish, especially on the basis of only one folio. It may also have been simply a misprint in his Katalog.... The folio is of Rascian orthography. 78 Upon closer examination, though, it was found that one folio was, in fact, missing between folia 303 and 304 (see Appendix D). The text is in continuo and connects the end of folio 303 with the beginning of folio 304. As with manuscript #646 and fragment #739/111, the impetus to investigate whether fragment #759/X belonged to manuscript #396 was provided by the paper (watermark) ana lysis. And as with the preceding example, the likelihood of this type of determination being made under ordinary circumstances was not high, due to the remoteness and in accessibility of the collection, as well as the practical problems involved with an investigation of this nature.* Before proceeding further with the analysis, it is necessary to explain the logic of determining that paper is the "same", especially under the aforementioned condi tions of subjectivity. There are different manners in which to record the watermarks from paper. The traditional is to carefully *Given photographs/microforms of the manuscript and the fragment, it might have been possible, based on the in formation provided in the description of D. Bogdanovic, to suppose that for this fragment identification may have oc curred through other more traditional means. This is a logical supposition and presupposes a desire on someone’s part to make an attempt to identify fragments in the Hi landar collection based on the manuscripts that are still housed in this collection. 79 trace the watermark by hand. This may be done in several ways, but it usually involves arranging for light to pass through the folio on which one can discern a watermark, and then to painstakingly trace the watermark on some highly transparent surface. This surface may be anything from "onion” skin type paper to a sheet of mylar film. This is the manner in which the watermarks of the Hilandar Slavic manuscripts were traced by M. Matejic. It is stressed that this process of tracing is painstaking, be cause if not done carefully, the instrument used to trace the watermark may pass or press through the surface and damage the paper of the manuscript. Such a procedure, slow and difficult at best, is complicated even further when the watermark is on paper that is in any way bound— whether in a bound codex or sim ply in sewn quires. One does not have the possibility of displaying the watermark fully (as, for example, on a lightstand), but must do one’s best under the conditions imposed in order to protect and preserve the original ma nuscript . If we disbind a manuscript, and where a laboratory is available, conditions are improved regarding the pos sibilities available for recording a watermark. Beta- radiography, for example, will record an exact image of the watermark.^ Since the paper is thinnest where the watermark is present, this technique, which is highly sensitive, will distinguish and record the watermark only. 80 This is the most precise method of recording a watermark. A method that is similar, but somewhat more crude and less reliable, is the use of photosensitive paper in recording watermarks. 8 it works on the same principle as does the beta-gamma photography (the fact that the paper is thinnest where the watermark is present), but is not as sensitive. As a result, if text is written on the paper, this method usually records the text as well (in mirror image). The result may hamper the ability to distinguish the exact contours of the watermark. Such a method would also seem to function best where single-leaf folia are utilized, although it may also be used, albeit with great difficulty, where a document/manuscript is bound.* *This method of recording the watermarks was also attempted by the author of the dissertation and Prof. M. Matejic on a research trip to Hungary in 1984. The results were less than satisfactory, possibly because we could not assure the best laboratory conditions. In addition, dif ficulties may have been caused by the fact that the books and manuscripts that were under study were bound. After several largely unsuccessful attempts, the traditional manner of recording watermarks (tracing) was resumed. A recent example of a watermark album that utilized the photosensitive paper method of watermark reproduction, and reasonably successfully is the album "Three Crescents", by A. Velkov and S. Andreev. This album, for the first time, produced a great variety of usually dated examples of this watermark which was popular in the seventeenth (earliest apparent example, 1597) as well as throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. As the authors themselves commented, however, this method worked best with single-leaf folia (they usually relied on Turkish documents— edicts and such, that were usually one page in length, and where the watermark could be found in complete and unfragmented form).® This method, however, also occa sionally recorded the underlying or overlying text in ad dition to the watermark. It is, however, generally a superior method, especially when similar watermarks are 81 It should also be possible to expose paper to x-rays, and record the watermark/s with this technique. This, too, would work best with disbound paper and when conducted un der laboratory conditions. Of all the methods for recording a watermark, only one does not depend on disbinding the manuscript, special equipment and/or laboratory conditions— the traditional method— carefully tracing a copy of the watermark. This is the method that has been used for decades,* that forms the basis of most identifications of watermarks in Slavic codices. It is traditionally used in producing albums of watermarks for paleographic purposes. While less than ideal, it has already been demonstra ted that the method is sufficiently accurate for our pur poses. Otherwise, there would have been little if any rea son to investigate the possibility that fragments #739/111 and #759/X belong to manuscripts #646 and #396, respec tively. Therefore, it is not considered necessary to fur ther justify the method of recording the watermarks and found in great varieties over a large period of time (where a small mistake in tracing may lead to a relatively signi ficant mistake in the dating of a manuscript). *This method, careful and painstaking tracing by hand, was the only method of recording watermarks possible in Hilandar Monastery. Any method that might have resulted in damage to the manuscripts was rejected a priori. Any method that involved use of a complicated technology or something as simple as electricity was impossible under the conditions present at Hilandar Monastery. 82 argue its sufficiency for purposes of identification— this has already been done. Yet another matter that should be addressed is the issue of the "same" paper. Research was conducted in order to determine what was known about paper production in the fourteenth century, and specifically, in what amounts paper with one watermark was produced. By one watermark, the actual wire configuration is understood, and not the "type" of watermark. Several wiremarks (watermarks) of the exact same type may have been produced by a papermaker. However, the exact same wiremark (watermark) could hardly have been produced. This is true because these wiremarks were made by hand and, even in an attempt to make the "same" one there would be differences, slight or major. However, even the paper from one wiremould would not all be the same. As the mould were used, small deforma tions would occur. This is especially true of the wiremark (watermark). As the wiremark was in use, it, being the portion of the mould that was attached separately, would begin to lose its shape. Circular shapes would usually elongate or portions might fall off.H Thus, even with one wiremark (watermark) there would be certain differ ences in shape over the life of the wiremould. As regards the amount of paper that one wire- (water) mark would produce, this could not be determined. Accord ing to Stevenson, who wrote the introduction to the reprint 83 of the famous Briquet albums, a wire-mould would have a life of only a few months.^ However, the fact that the amount of paper that one mould (actually pair of moulds, they were used in pairs)^ would produce is not determined is not necessarily a weak ness of the proposed methodology. In that the same paper is being identified on the basis of the similarity of the watermark, it does not really matter that we do not know the amount of paper that would be produced with one and the same watermark from one mould or pair of moulds. Since it is not presupposed that a monastery such as Hilandar would buy the entire run of paper with one mark, but only a portion of the run, the only fact that is presupposed is that the paper it bought from one run was probably the same portion of the same run. Given this presupposition, and given that a water mark changed its appearance over the course of its use, what is significant is the identification of the same paper (based on the identical nature of the watermarks) in more than one manuscript— this same paper coming from the same portion of the run. In other words, if we assume for illustrative pur poses that an entire run consisted of 3,000 leaves of paper, and Hilandar bought 500 of them, what is claimed is that the degree of similarity among this portion of the run, these 500 sheets, is higher than for another portion of the same entire paper run. This is claimed since changes 84 over the course of the run should make each portion of the run somewhat different from any other portion. Even if we assume, however, that the methodology is not so exact and that the attributions proposed later in this chapter are not valid (because it may eventually be shown that the same degree of similarity among types of paper associated with Hilandar Monastery exists for manu scripts known to have been produced elsewhere than Hilan dar), the proposed methodology would still be of use in narrowing down the possible scriptoria where a given codex was produced. This is an improvement on the present situa tion where no information regarding the possible scriptoria of such manuscripts is available. However, a portion of the research conducted at a later stage should serve as proof of the validity of the methodology and the claim that the paper may be, in fact, associated directly with a specific monastery, in this case, Hilandar. Once the paper was investigated and compared, and it was determined what relationships existed, the next stage, as indicated in the previous chapter, was to see among which specific manuscripts these relationships existed. Once it was shown that the relationships existed among ma nuscripts known or attributed to Hilandar (shown in Tables 4-10, and especially 6 and 9 of the previous chapter), the watermarks themselves were subsequently closely examined. 85 At this point it was again noticed that certain wa termarks had been identified as "identical" to watermarks presented in albums. According to the logic of the pro posed methodology, this would give an opportunity to de termine whether, in fact, our assumption was correct. This question of "identical" watermarks (that shown in an album vs. a watermark from a Hilandar manuscript) may serve as a test of reliability of the proposed theory and investiga tions conducted. Before proceeding in the next chapter to indicate the results of this test of the methodology and premises that are involved, it is necessary to first indicate the total number of manuscripts being related to Hilandar Monastery and interpret the results shown in Tables 3-10 (given in the previous chapter). It is again noted that in this study every attempt has been made to minimize the subjective nature of the comparisons. Even further, in the next section of this chapter, a manuscript will not be proposed for attribution to Hilandar Monastery on the basis of only one* type of paper (i.e., watermark). It is the interrelationship of specific paper types that is paramount in this study. If a determination of the "same" paper may be considered in sufficient and too weak for attribution where only one *Exceptions to this operating principle (more than one type of watermark used as the basis of attribution) will be explained in the body of the text. 86 type of paper is involved, the argument is considerably strengthened where more than one kind of paper, each of which seems to be related to usage in Hilandar Monastery, is involved. Thus, it is not simply a question of two watermarks from two different manuscripts being called the "exact same", but of at least two such pairs of watermarks (or approximately four different watermarks in at least two manuscripts, and often more). The greater the number of the types of paper that are involved or interrelated among manuscripts, it is suggested, the greater the pro bability of positive attribution. This argument, too, is logical, for if more than one location received the "same" specific paper, the likeli hood that two different locations received both (or more) types of paper and then that each of these different scrip toria produced two different manuscripts, both of which ended up in one and the same location, cannot be great. 87 Repeating the information from Table 6 in the pre vious chapter: HILANDAR MS. # RELATES TO 48 258. 265 79 470?. 476?. 141 84 258 48 298 254. 474 381 390 392 19, 55?, 342?, 476, 19, 420. 760/V? 453 474?. 644? Based on the relationships of the paper in those ma nuscripts constituting Group A (manuscripts known to have been copied in Hilandar Monastery) with other manuscripts in the collection, the following is revealed: a watermark from #48 relates to the same watermark in #258 (which is also from Group A) and in #265 (which is Group A^); a wa termark in #79 relates to #141 (unattributed) and possibly to 470 (unattributed) and #476 (presently in Group A2 ); a watermark in #298 relates to #254 (unattributed) and pos sibly to #474 (which is in Group B); watermarks in #392 88 relate to #19, which is unattributed (two different water marks), to #254 (unattributed), to #420, (unattributed), to #476 (presently in Group A2 ), and possibly to #55 (un attributed) and #760/V (unattributed). On the basis of the relationships indicated, #19 and #254, each of which has two watermarks which match those in Group A, are proposed for attribution to Hilandar Mo nastery as their place of production. Hilandar manuscript #476, which is presently in Group A2 (believed to have been produced elsewhere), also has two watermarks which are related to those in Group A. On the basis of this, manuscript #476 would ordinarily be suggested as the product of the Hilandar scriptorium. How ever, it contains a scribal inscription which suggests that it was produced in St. Panteleimon (Rus..., possibly Husikon). The possible interpretations, then, are several. One is that Rus... does not signify Rusikon, but something else. Another is that the manuscript was produced in Ru sikon, but was produced for Hilandar and using paper from Hilandar. This suggestion is somewhat strengthened by noting that the recension and orthography of manuscript $476 are both Serbian and Rascian, which is typical for Hilandar Monastery and not for Rusikon (St. Panteleimon).* *St. Panteleimon is a Russian monastery. This is not to imply that there were no Serbian monks present or 89 It could also be likely, though, that while the paper is that of Hilandar Monastery, it was borrowed or bought from Hilandar to be used in St. Panteleimon. Still another possibility is that monasteries on Mount Athos bought paper at the same time. If this last interpretation is correct, it would suggest that the pro posed methodology may assist researchers to localize the manuscripts to Mount Athos, but not necessarily to a spe cific scriptorium on Mount Athos. It will be shown later, however, that in all likelihood the paper for manuscript #476 came from Hilandar. In addition to the proposed attribution of Hilandar manuscripts #19 and #254, the relationships above show that there is an interrelationship to manuscripts in Group B (attributed through traditional paleographic comparisons and research) with those in Group A. Thus, the fact that manuscript #474 is shown to have paper related to manu script #298 and possibly to manuscript #453* assists the confirmation of the attribution made by L. Cernic of ma nuscript #474 as being a product of monk Iov in Hilandar Monastery, while the possible link of a watermark in codex that such a manuscript could not have been produced there. *The watermark in manuscripts #453 and #474 that is proposed as being the same was only copied by D. Bogdano- vi6. In conversations with the author of this dissertation during 1985, he assurred me that the watermark was, in fact, the very same. Given that the watermark which cor responds to one in #298 is, without doubt, the same, this assertion of Academician Bogdanovic would seem to be con firmed. 90 #475 with a watermark in #453 and #644 also tends to assist the confirmation of this attribution by L. Cernic. In this manner, the proposed methodology can be shown to work hand in hand with traditional paleographic investigations and conclusions. The manuscripts in Group show the following rela tionships : 148 142. 145?. 146, 147 265 48, 471? 393 Hilandar manuscript #148 (scribe Io/an?/), which was indicated to be a set with manuscripts #142 and #146, has at least one watermark in common.* It is also possibly related to manuscript #145, which according to the water mark information given by D. Bogdanovic, is related through at least 3 watermarks to manuscripts #142, #146 and #148. This group (#142, #146 and #148) has paper which is related to the following manuscripts in addition to each other: #610 and #644. Hilandar manuscript #644, which has been attributed to Hilandar by L. Cernic and which is probably related to Hilandar manuscript #453 (from Group A), should *D. Bogdanovi£ indicates that these manuscripts are a set and that the watermarks in manuscript #148 are the same as for the older portions of manuscripts #142 and #146.1® 91 be attributed to Hilandar Monastery. Therefore, if one accepts this logic, then the entire group of manuscripts, #142, #146 and #148, is also proposed for attribution to Hilandar Monastery. Hilandar Manuscript #265 (scribe Raiikoo, as he him self signed his name) ,^ which has paper related to Hilan dar manuscript #48 (from Group A), is only possibly a pro duct of Hilandar Monastery and is not proposed at this time for attribution to the monastery, even though it is clearly the same watermark (the watermark is a "popular" one). Further investigation at a later time may suggest, though, that it too should be attributed as a product of the monastery. Hilandar manuscript #393 (copied for Patriarch Sava IV), does not seem to have any related paper. Since Sava IV spent most of his time outside Hilandar Monastery, there is no particular reason to assume he would have ne cessarily commissioned it from there. To summarize the analysis of Groups A, A^ and A2 '. on the basis of the interrelationship of their watermarks to those found in Group A, manuscripts #19 and #254 are proposed for attribution to Hilandar Monastery, manuscript #148 (and with it #142 and #146) of Group A} is also pro posed, as a set, for attribution to Hilandar Monastery. Manuscript #476, from Group A2 , is shown to have the same paper, at least in part, as Hilandar manuscripts, although 92 actual attribution to Hilandar Monastery cannot be made at this time.* This group (attributed to Hilandar or to paper of Hilandar Monastery) will constitute Group C in the remain- ing portion of this dissertation. If one accepts the attributions made by L. Cernic, then several more manuscripts are attributable to Hilandar Monastery.** These, in turn, provide more watermarks for the proposed methodology. The relationships as shown in Table 9 of the previous chapter are as follows: HILANDAR MS. # RELATES TO 127 128. 144. 257. 256. 257 128 127. 144. 257 143 454. 257. 454 388 389?, 389? 389 388?. 388? 473 470?. 610. 421?. 226. 610 474 19. 254. 760/1?. 254. 298 475 453?, 644? 644 146. 453?. 475? *Three of its nine known watermarks relate almost exclusively with manuscripts known to have been copied in Hilandar or which are attributed to Hilandar. **The author of the dissertation is unaware of any evidence that would deny or cast doubt the attributions of L. Cerni6. Furthermore, the proposed methodology supports attribution of Hilandar manuscripts #474, #475 and #644 which are suggested by L. Cernic to be the work, in part, of one and the same scribe.20 93 On the basis of the interrelationship of the paper in Group B with the manuscripts indicated above, Hilandar manuscripts #226, #257, #454 and #610 are proposed for at tribution to Hilandar Monastery as their place of copying. Each of these codices has at least two types of paper (wa termarks) that interrelate, with the exception of Hilandar #226.* The group of manuscripts attributed from Group B will be referred to as Group D. Table 12 shows the relationships of Group C (attri buted through Group A) with other manuscripts in the Hi landar Slavic Manuscript Collection. *0nly one watermark was found in manuscript #226 (a "Crown"), and therefore no other support may be given. It is a rare type which is also apparently found in manuscript #473 (Group B) and manuscript #610 (to be attributed). 94 TABLE 12 GROUP C MANUSCRIPTS ATTRIBUTED TO HILANDAR BY PAPER OR TO PAPER OF HILANDAR (From Group A) HILANDAR MS. # RELATES TO 19 392, 254, 474, 760/1?, 55, 55. 342?. 392, 476 142 145, 146, 147, 148, 145, 146, 610. 610 146 142, 145?, 147, 148, 145, 147, 142, 145?, 147, 147, 148. 644 148 142. 145?. 146. 147 254 19, 474, 760/1, 298, 474, 420. 476, 760/V? 476 19, 55?, 342?, 392, 254, 392. 420. 760/V?. 389 On the basis of the relationship of watermarks indi cated in Table 12 (Group C), manuscripts #55, #145, #147 and 760/1 are proposed for attribution to Hilandar Monas tery. Table 13 on the following page shows the relation ships of Group D with other manuscripts in the Hilandar Monastery Slavic Manuscript Collection. 95 TABLE 13 GROUP D MANUSCRIPTS ATTRIBUTED TO HILANDAR BY PAPER (From Group B) HILANDAR MS. # RELATES TO 226 473. 610 257 256, 127. 127. 128. 144. 256 454 422. 143. 143. 459 610 473?, 142, 145, 146, 142, 226. 473 On the basis of the relationship of watermarks indi cated in Table 13 (Group D) , manuscripts #256 and #422 are proposed for attribution to Hilandar Monastery. They each have at least two watermarks that interrelate with those in Group D.* Continuing with the logic presented above, the manu scripts and watermarks in Groups C (attributed from A) and D (attributed from B) will form Group E. The relationships of the paper in these manuscripts are shown in Table 14. *Hilandar manuscript #422 has only one watermark that is related with Group D, but it is of an extremely rare form of the "Helmet" (with a lion surmounted on the helmet). It is suggested that this rather unique type is sufficient in this case to suggest attribution, especially since, as it will be seen, #422 interacts with other manu scripts in the Hilandar collection. 96 TABLE 14 GROUP E MANUSCRIPTS ATTRIBUTED TO HILANDAR BY PAPER OR TO PAPER OF HILANDAR (From Groups C and D) HILANDAR MS. # RELATES TO A 55 760/V, 19, 19, 342?, 392?, 476 145 142, 146, 147, 148, 142, 146. 610, 146. 610 147 142, 145?, 146, 148, 145?, 146 256 127. 257, 257 422 454. 21?. 180. 180. 459 760/1 19. 254. 274 Based on the relationship of manuscript #180 with the manuscripts in Group E (and specifically, with #422), it should also be proposed for attribution to Hilandar Monastery. It is also suggested that manuscript (fragment) #760/V also be added. It has one watermark which relates to #55 as well as one watermark (the "pear" discussed in the previous chapter) identified by D. Bogdanovic which could only be the one of the same watermarks that is found either of two manuscript pairs, #254 and #420 or #392 and 97 #476. In that all of these manuscripts have earlier in this dissertation been attributed to Hilandar Monastery or to paper of this monastery, it too should be proposed for attribution to Hilandar Monastery as its place of copying. Manuscripts #180 and #760/V thus become Group F and in Table 15 show the following relationships with other manuscripts (paper/watermarks) of Hilandar Monastery. TABLE 15 GROUP F MANUSCRIPTS ATTRIBUTED TO HILANDAR BY PAPER (From Group E) HILANDAR MS. # RELATES TO 180 422. 459. 422. 21? 760/V 55. 254?, 392?. 420?. 476? With this group (F) the present attribution of Hilan dar manuscripts will conclude for the time. 98 To summarize the results of the above proposed at tributions : On the basis of the relationships of their paper (watermarks) to Group A, Hilandar manuscripts #JL9. and #254 together with manuscript #148 (and with it #142 and #146). as a set, of Group Aj are proposed for attribution to Hi landar Monastery as their place of copying. Manuscript #476, of Group A2 , has been shown to have the same paper as other Hilandar manuscripts, although actual attribution to Hilandar cannot be made at this time; On the basis of the relationships of their paper (watermarks) to Group B, Hilandar manuscripts #226. #257. #454 and #610 are proposed for attribution to Hilandar Mo nastery as their place of copying; On the basis of the relationships of their paper (watermarks) to Group C, Hilandar manuscripts #55, #145. #147 and #760/1 are proposed for attribution to Hilandar Monastery as their place of copying.; On the basis of the relationships of their paper (watermarks) to Group D, Hilandar manuscripts #256 and #422 are proposed for attribution to Hilandar Monastery as their place of copying; On the basis of the relationships of its paper (watermarks) to Group E, Hilandar manuscript #180 is pro proposed for attribution to Hilandar Monastery as its place gg of copying; and on the basis of the relationship of Hilan dar fragment #760/V with manuscripts in Group E and manu scripts in Group A, it, too, is proposed for attribution to Hilandar Monastery as its place of copying. The total number of manuscripts proposed for attri bution is seventeen. Of this number, one, #14 8 has the name of its scribe (legible portion reads, Io/an?/).^l Thus, the scribe loan? (Iosif?) is also proposed for at tribution to Hilandar Monastery. Hilandar manuscript #476 is shown to have the same, at least in part, paper. And, of course, it should again be noted that the manuscripts to which fragments # 73 g/III and #7 5 g / X belong have been identified as a result of this paper analysis. ENDNOTES CHAPTER III ^■Bogdanovic, Katalog. . . . p. 257 3Ibid., p. 222. 3Ibid., pp. 155; 256. ^Ibid., p. 256. 8Ibid., p. 155. 8Ibid., p. 256. ^Allan Stevenson, "Introduction," in Ch. Briquet, Les FiJigranes, I. (Amsterdam, 1968):*7. 8Asparukh Velkov, Stefan Andreev, Vodni znafbi v osmano-turskite dokumenti, I, Tri luni, (Sofia: Narodna biblioteka "Kiril i Metodii”, 1983). 9Ibid., p. 12. ^Stevenson, "Introduction...,” p. 20. n Ibid. l^ibid. 13Ibid. ^•^Bogdanovid, Katalog. . . . p. 182. 15por example, see the article by L. Cerni6, "0 atri- buciji...", pp. 335-358. l^Bogdanovic, Katalog. . . . p. 94. l^Ibid., p. 121. The microfilm of this manuscript was also verified to check the unusual spelling. 18Ibid., p. 155. 19Ibid., p. 182. 39See information for Hilandar manuscript #158 in 100 101 Bogdanovic, Katalog..., p. 96, where he indicates that ac cording to L. Cerni6 all these manuscripts are the work, in part, of one scribe. ^Bogdanovic, Katalog.... p. 94. CHAPTER IV MANUSCRIPT ATTRIBUTION THROUGH PAPER: SUGGESTED PROOFS OF VALIDITY As indicated in the previous chapter, it had been found during the course of the identification of watermarks that resulted in the publication of the work, Watermarks of the Hilandar Slavic Codices..., that certain watermarks in the collection appeared to be and were identified as "identical" to watermarks given in albums.* The first step was to investigate and verify the previous identifi cation of watermarks of the manuscripts described above in Groups A, B, C, D, E and F in order to find any occurrences of such watermarks.1 It was then necessary to analyze any such watermarks, referring to the sources used in the wa termark albums utilized (primarily those of Mosin-Traljic or of Likhachev)^. ♦Based on the experience of the author of this dis sertation, the identification of a watermark as "identical" to one in an album does not occur often. For example, of the more than 2,000 watermarks and fragments of watermarks that were investigated during the course of preparing the data for Watermarks.... only sixty were identified as such. Many of these contained dates, which made such identifica tions somewhat e a s i e r . 3 102 103 Results of this analysis are shown in Table 16. TABLE 16 FOURTEENTH CENTURY WATERMARKS IDENTIFIED AS IDENTICAL* IN HILANDAR MANUSCRIPTS (From Groups A through F) MS. # WATERMARK ALBUM REFERENCE 19 Hunter’s Horn M.-Tr. 4913 19 Hunter’s Horn M.-Tr. 4956 48* Letter "L" M.-Tr. 5303 48 Unicorn M.-Tr. 5940 226* Crown M.-Tr. 3207 254* Pear M.-Tr. 4240** 256* Letter "G" M.-Tr. 5262 257 Letter "H" M.-Tr. 5121 381 Crossbow M.-Tr. 261 392* Two Circles with Cross M.-Tr. 2076 392* Hunter’s Horn M.-Tr. 4907 392* Hunter’s Horn M.-Tr. 4970/75 476* Hunter’s Horn M.-Tr. 4969/74 *If asterisked, the watermark was identified as "al- mostidentical" or "virtually identical" in the work Water marks ... (see pp. 326-328 in Watermarks... for these and other examples).^ ♦♦This watermark was originally identified in Water marks ... according to the album of Briquet, #7333 (1385). It was subsequently, on the basis of the research conducted for this dissertation, more accurately identified according to the album of Mosin-Traljic, #4240. It is virtually identical to the one in the a l b u m .5 104 The analysis of the sources in the watermark album of V. Mosin and S. Traljic, as shown in Table 17, indicates the following:6 TABLE 17 PAPER UTILIZED FOR ALBUM SOURCES (WATERMARKS) IDENTIFIED AS IDENTICAL IN HILANDAR MANUSCRIPTS (From Groups A through F) ALBUM REFERENCE PAPER SOURCE M.-Tr. 261 BI 4115 M.-Tr. 2076 Cetin.je 57 M.-Tr. 3207 Likhachev #109 M.-Tr. 4240 Cetin.je 57/Likhachev #815 M.-Tr. 4907 BI 23391 M.-Tr. 4913 Krusedol 60 M.-Tr. 4956 Likhachev #789 M.-Tr. 4969* BI 7348 M.-Tr. 4970** Zadar. Per. Ill M.-Tr. 4974* Zadar DA; Docum. publ. Ill M.-Tr. 4975** Zadar DA; Docum. publ. Ill M.-Tr. 5121 Decani 62 M.-Tr. 5262 Zagreb JA III-b-15 M.-Tr. 5303 Decani 5 M.-Tr. 5940 Decani 143 *Both identifications relate to Hilandar #476.^ **Both identifications relate to Hilandar #392.® 105 The analysis of the document sources for the water marks in the watermark album of V. Mosin and S. Traljic referred to in Table 17, is found in Table 18:^ TABLE 18 DOCUMENTS* UTILIZED FOR ALBUM SOURCES (WATERMARKS) IDENTIFIED AS IDENTICAL IN HILANDAR MANUSCRIPTS (From Table 17) PAPER SOURCE DOCUMENT/MANUSCRIPT BI 4115 "Filigranes nonreproduits" Cetin.je 57 Sintagma of M. Blastares Likhachev #109 "Misture di Biccherna" Cetin.je 57 Sintagma of M. Blastares Likhachev #815 "Amartolos" (Sinodal’ 148) BI 23391 "Filigranes nonreproduits” Krusedol 60 "Gregory the Theologian" Likhachev #789 "Typikon" (Sevast’ianov 27) BI 7348 "Filigranes nonreproduits" Zadar. Per. Ill "State Archives" Zadar DA: Doc. pub. Ill "Dalmatian Archives" Zadar DA; Doc. pub. Ill "Dalmatian Archives" De£ani 62 Triodion Zagreb JA III-b-15 "Varlaam i Ioasaf" Decani 5 Tetraevangelion Decani 143 Octoechos *Based on Mosin-Traljic or on Likhachev. Succeeding pages will provide more information and the citations. 106 An analysis of the sources utilized by Mosin-Traljic for the watermarks (as shown in Table 18, see previous page) reveals that these sources fall into four primary categories. There are 3 sources from BI ("Filigranes Non reproduits"), which is, in fact, a group of watermarks collected, but not reproduced, by Charles Briquet in his well known four-volume study and albums on watermarks.H There are three sources from Zadar, Yugoslavia (in two different archives). There are again three sources from the three-volume watermark study and album of Likhachev (one of these sources, for watermark #789, is also indi cated to be found in Cetinje #57). Finally, there are seven watermarks in six sources (one manuscript, Cetinje #57, is the source for two watermarks) from different ma nuscript collections in Yugoslavia. Thus, there are a total of 16 sources (really 15, since one is repeated) for fourteen* different watermarks in manuscripts known to have been produced (Group A in previous chapter) or attri buted to Hilandar Monastery (Groups B-F) as their place of production. The first group here, BI (#4115, #7348, #23391), is non-Slavic and probably had single-leaf documents as the source for their three respective watermarks. The fact that they are non-Slavic is probably revealed in the location *For two of the watermarks two separate potential album sources are listed. 107 of the original source documents, Marseilles, Fano and Hollande Septendr., respectively.^ There are two justi fications for suggesting that the documents involved were of a single-leaf: the size of the documents, 42.5x60 cm., 30x44 cm. and 30x43 cm., and the fact that Mosin-Traljic do not relate these watermarks to others in the same album, as is typical when a manuscript is the source (indicated with cf. and some other number or numbers in the album).^ The same conclusions appear to be true for the three sources from the Zadar archives. Their dimensions are 29.5x 45 cm., 30.5x45 cm. and 30x44.5 cm. and they are not related to other watermarks in the album.^ Thus, these six sources and identifications of the watermarks found in them as "identical" to watermarks in manuscripts found in Groups A-F do not, on the basis of the available evidence, reveal any relationship to each other. The only conclusion that may be drawn is that when a single-page document is involved, there is little if any likelihood of showing a direct relationship to Hilandar Monastery on the basis of the proposed methodology. How ever, there is a dramatic development in the analysis of the other watermark sources indicated in the albums of Mosin-Tralji6. The first group that will be considered here is that cited as found in Likhachev. These watermarks are cited as #109, #789 and #815 in Likhachev.15 108 Likhachev #109 has very little information. It is taken from a source cited as "Misture di Biccherna". Fur ther information in Likhachev indicates that it is #369 in the source in which it is found, which is probably Sienne. It is not clear what this source might represent. Addi tional information regarding this watermark or source could not be found.1® Likhachev #789 was found (together with watermarks #785-#788 and #790) in a Slavic manuscript, The Church Rules of the Lavra of St. Sabbas of Jerusalem ("Jerusalem Typikon"), from approximately the year 1372. It was #27 (#1458) in the collection of P. I. Sevast’x^nov.^ The description of the Sevast’tfanov collection by A. Viktorov in 1881 provides further information regarding this manuscript. The manuscript was at one time in Hilan- dar Monastery where Father Nikanor, who was closely asso ciated with Hilandar Monastery, wrote an inscription in 1685.1® This manuscript refers to Ss. Simeon, Sava and Arsenije, all Serbian saints. Most important, however, is an indication by Viktorov of an inscription on the obverse of the last folio. According to him, the inscription is contemporary to the codex and probably contains the name of its scribe. The inscription, in transliteration and in translation, reads: "grieshnii mona£h Marko" ("sinful monk Marko").19 There can be little doubt that this is scribe Marko of Hilandar, also the scribe of former Hilandar manuscript 109 #298 which dates from the same period (1360-1370) and which was removed from Hilandar Monastery in 1897. It is now in the National Library of Serbia under number Rs 17.20 Thus, Sevast’lanov #27 is a Hilandar manuscript, pro duced by a known Hilandar scribe. Here, then, is the first direct link of watermarks to a Hilandar manuscript which is not even in the present collection. This manuscript (#27 in the Sevast’ianov collection) was "discovered" through its relationship to watermarks from manuscripts in Groups A-F, noted in the previous chapter. On the other hand, Likhachev #815 does have further information. It, together with watermarks #800-#814, was taken from Sinodal’ manuscript #148. This is a Chronograph of George Hamartalos. Likhachev indicates that this manu script has an inscription that it was "written on Athos in Hilandar Monastery in the year 1386".21 This becomes the second Hilandar manuscript to be "discovered" due to its relationship to watermarks from manuscripts in Groups A-F. The Sinodal’ collection was described in detail by the famous Russian scholars Gorskii and Nevostruev.22 How ever, the description of this manuscript is not available in their multi-volume description. Further information on Sinodal* manuscript #148 is, however, available in a later description of the same collection, which specifically treats those manuscripts that were not part of the Gorskii- Nevostruev description. Sinodal’ manuscript #148 is, thus, 110 described in brief under #1032.* As part of this descrip tion the inscription found in the manuscript is provided in transliteration. In part it reads: "...ispisase... rukami mnogogreshni£h i smirenn’ilfh talffi monalth Romana i Vasilia...v lete 6894..." ("...written by the hands of the sinful and humble monks Roman and Vasilii ...in the year 6894..." /1386/).23 Thus, this Hilandar manuscript was also copied by two Hilandar scribes, one of whom at least, Roman, is well known. Even more remarkable were the results of the analy sis of watermark sources from manuscripts in Yugoslavia as cited by Mosin-Traljic. These were Cetinje #57 (two wa termarks), Decani #5, #62 and #143, Krusedol #60 and Yugo slav Academy III-b-15 (see, Tables 17 and 18 on previous pages in this chapter). Since all the above manuscripts fall within its pur view, it was possible to find information regarding these manuscripts in a union list compiled by D. Bogdanovic of manuscripts in Yugoslavia.24 gy searching under its ti tle, the following was determined for each manuscript: Cetinje #57 ("Sintagma of M. Blastares") is of Serbian recension and is dated 1387. It is 29x22 cm. in size.25 *It is interesting to note that the description of the watermarks of Sinodal’ manuscript #1032 (#148) are given according to the Briquet watermark album, and not Likhachev, where they were cited first and in specific re ference to this manuscript.26 Ill Decani #5 ("Tetraevangelion"), which is of Ser bian recension and dated ca. 1360-1370, was copied by the scribe Iosif. It, too, is 29x22 cm. in size. Under the bibliography pertaining to this manuscript is a reference to the previously utilized article by L. Cernic on the "Attribution of Serbian Medieval Cyrillic Manuscripts".27 In this article, on the basis of traditional paleographic comparison, the scholar maintains that "Iosif", the scribe of Decani #5, and "Damiian", who is the scribe of Hilandar manuscripts #126 and #390 (which we know were copied in Hilandar Monastery), are the same individual.28 Thus, this manuscript (Decani #5), too, is a product of a known scribe of Hilandar and was almost certainly copied in Hilandar Mo nastery. Decani #62 is a Triodion, 27.5x21 cm. in s i z e . 29 According to the Inventar..., this manuscript dates from approximately 1350-1360, and has an inscription of the scribe I o v . 20 This is the well-known Iov, scribe of Hi landar, who according to L. Cerni£, copied or took part in the copying of 14 different manuscripts* over a period of thirty years.21 *During the course of researching the information in the Likhachev albums of watermarks and explanatory notes and descriptions, made necessary by the results of this portion of the research, yet another manuscript of Iov (not indicated by L. Cerni6) was revealed. This manuscript, which represents "16 Homilies of Gregory the Theologian", belonged to Anan’in at the time Likhachev compiled his al bums. The early 19th century scholar, Tromonin, had incor rectly dated it 1292 (based on what he thought to be an 112 This is the fourth Hilandar manuscript that has been "discovered" by means of the paper analysis, due to the "identical" relationship of paper in Hilandar manuscripts from Groups A-F (manuscripts which are still found in the monastery) to sources utilized by Mosin-Traj1ic in their watermark albums.^2 Decani #143 ("Octoechos", modes 1-4), is of Ser bian recension and is dated ca. the end of the fourteenth century. It measures 28.5x21 cm. There is, as far as could be determined, very little other information regard ing this manuscript a v a i l a b l e . ^3 Krusedol #60("Homilies of Gregory the Theolo gian") is apperantly now listed under a different number. The only manuscript from this period which is listed in the Inventar... of D. Bogdanovic with such a title does happen to be a Krusedol manuscript, but it is given as #55. It is of Serbian recension and dated 1375/1390. It is 28x 20.3 cm. in size. It also contains an inscription of the original inscription). The manuscript, in fact, contains a scribal inscription by ”takh Iov", in which he indicates that he wrote/copied this manuscript through the urging of Abbot Neofit, because these texts could not be found in Hilandar Monastery. It was completed on October 18, 1370, according to the inscript ion.34 The text of this manuscript must have been considered important, for Iov with two other scribes, only a few years later, took part in the copying of what appears to be the same text^S (the manuscript now in the Museum of the Sei— bian Orthodox Church, Krusedol z IV, and is dated 1375/ 1390). It would be very interesting to compare these two texts. One may almost assume that the lattermanuscript was copied from the earlier 1370 text of Iov. 113 scribe Iov, who is mentioned earlier in this c h a p t e r . 36 It, thus, becomes the fifth Hilandar manuscript to be "dis covered" in this manner. Zagreb JA III-b-15 ("Life of Barlaam and Joa- saf") is of Serbian recension and datable to the third quarter of the fourteenth century. It measures 27.7x21 c m . 37 It also contains an inscription by one (there are three, according to Mosin) of its scribes, Vasilie by name. This could very well be the same Vasilii (or Vasilie?) who took part in the copying of the "Chronograph of George Ha- martolos", with monk Roman, in the year 1386.38 in other words, this manuscript, too, is possibly a product of a known Hilandar scribe and could have likely been produced in Hilandar Monastery (there is no indication of any other scriptorium). If so, it would be the sixth and final such codex to be "discovered" or found through use of this me thodology and subsequent investigations. To summarize the results of this portion of the in vestigation, it has been determined that when a watermark found in Hilandar manuscripts from Groups A-F was indicated as being "identical" to a watermark in the Mosin-Traljic albums, there is no evident connection to Hilandar Monas tery only if the watermark in the Mosin-Tral.iic albums came from a single-leaf document. However, if the watermark in 114 the album came from a codex, as was the case with ten of the watermarks, it has been shown that all nine (two wa termarks came from one codice, Cetinje #57) of the codices were of Serbian recension. For the six codices for which we have this information, all were also of the same ap proximate size: they ranged from 27.5 to 29 cm. in height, and 20.3 to 22 cm. in width. These are, in fact, minor differences in range, since binding and re-binding may also play a role in their present measurable size. Most importantly for purposes of this study, however, was the indication that for the eight sources which are definitely codices (two were from Likhachev and six were from collections in Yugoslavia), there is clear proof that five (and probably all six) were produced/copied by known scribes of Hilandar Monastery. There is also an either outright indication in the codex itself or a logical sup position that the scriptorium where each of these codices was produced was Hilandar Monastery. (In subsequent por- tionsof this dissertation this group of six manuscripts will be referred to as Group "X".) It should also be noted that there is no indication that the other two codices from the group of eight above, Decani #143 and Cetinje #57, were produced elsewhere. In fact, it is possible that these codices, too, are products of Hilandar Monastery. This seems especially plausible for Cetinje #57, which has two watermarks identified as "identical" to watermarks from Hilandar manuscripts found 115 in Groups A-F. It would be most useful for these two ma nuscripts to be analyzed and compared to known Hilandar manuscripts and scribes, keeping in mind Hilandar Monas tery as their possible or probable source of production. Thus, it has been demonstrated that when the album source for a watermark which has been indicated as "iden tical" is from a codice, there is 100% reliability in re lating the paper of this codice to a manuscript of Serbian recension, and a 60%-75% verification of the reliability of the method of paper comparison for indication of the scriptorium (in this case, Hilandar Monastery). Although at first consideration seemingly improba ble, it would appear that, in fact, paper analysis of this type is sufficiently accurate to be able to indicate the probable place of production of a fourteenth-century manu script . Although this has been demonstrated only on the basis of Hilandar Monastery as the scriptorium, there would be no reason to assume that Hilandar Monastery is remarkable in this regard. Thus, the same conclusion should be valid for other scriptoria of the fourteenth century. This portion of the research should, therefore, be considered proof of the validity of the proposed theory and methodology for suggesting attribution to a scriptorium through watermark comparison and analysis. If this were not true, it would otherwise be neces sary to assume that the "discovery" of these six Hilandar 116 manuscripts was simply a matter of coincidence. Yet, if coincidence, it would be very difficult to explain those relationships found to those watermark sources first pub lished by Likhachev. A subsequent, admittedly somewhat cursory, investigation found that there were a total of only two manuscripts indicated by Likhachev in his albums as having been produced in Hilandar during the fourteenth century.* One was by Iov, the Chronograph of Georgios Ha- martolos. (Sinodal’ #148, described under #1032). The other codex, which actually was discovered by coincidence (due to its proximity in the album), was the Anan’in manu script, again copied by scribe Iov. However, one of these two manuscripts was found by use of the proposed method and paper analysis. A third Hilandar codex found in Li khachev was not even indicated to be from Hilandar. This was the situation with Sevast’f&nov #27, by the scribe Marko. It must be assumed, therefore, that it is highly unlikely that this regular "discovery” of the few apparent Hilandar manuscripts in Likhachev is only a question of simple coincidence. To this we may add the fact that neither of the two manuscripts by Iov or the ones of Marko, Roman and Vasilii are indicated in L. Cernic’s article on "Attribution...".^ *For an example of a Hilandar manuscript that is from a later period, there is a codex from the year 1412 which was given by Likhachev as a source. It is described under #63 in the Gorskii-Nevostruev description of the Si nodal’ Collection.^ 117 It is true that it was not the purpose of this researcher to find all the manuscripts of scribes Iov or Roman, for example. Yet, it is also true that she does indicate quite a number of them. The absence of the manuscripts "discovered” through the methodology is, however, an indication of how diffi cult it is to locate references to these manuscripts. The fact that four (really three, since one was coincidence) such manuscripts were, in fact, found through the methodo logy is yet another indication that it should not be con sidered coincidence. It is, moreover, a further valida tion of the value of this methodology and type of analysis. An evaluation of the sources (from Groups A-F) of watermarks that relate to the above six manuscripts shows: Mosin-Traljic #4240 (also Likhachev #815), which came from Sinodal1 #48 (now #1032), was related to a wa termark in Hilandar #254. Hilandar #254 comes from our Group C. Mosin-Traljic #4913, which came from Krusedol #60? (55?!, see above, p. 117), was related to a watermark from Hilandar manuscript #19, which is again found in our Group C. 118 Mosin-Traljic #4956 (also Likhachev #789), which came from Sevast*ianov #27, was related to a watermark found in Hilandar manuscript #19, which, as indicated, is found in our Group C. Thus, this particular Hilandar Sla vic manuscript, #19, is related with two additional water marks to known Hilandar manuscripts. Mosin-Traljic #5262, which came from Zagreb JA III-b-15, was related to watermark found in Hilandar Sla vic manuscript #256. Hilandar Slavic manuscript #256 is found in our Group E. Mosin-Traljic #5303, which came from Decani #5, was related to a watermark found in Hilandar manuscript #48, which is found in our Group A (those manuscripts known to have been produced in Hilandar Monastery). Since Decani #5 was copied by scribe Iosif, who is attributed by L. Cer- nic to be the same person as Damiian, a known scribe of Hilandar, this relationship of the paper which has been shown may serve as additional proof for her own attribu tion of this scribe. Thus, to summarize, this portion of the research provides further confirmation for the attribution of Hi landar Slavic manuscripts #19. #254 and #256 as products of Hilandar Monastery’s scriptorium. 119 Now that this methodology may be considered as having been proven valid, it is useful to further continue the research in two aspects. One is necessitated by the "dis covery" of the Hilandar manuscripts found in watermark al bums through the conducted anaylsis of watermarks identi fied previously (in the work, Watermarks...) as "identical" (Group X). Since they are provided in the albums of Mosin- Traljic or Likhachev, it is potentially of benefit to the research of this dissertation to incorporate the watermarks from these manuscripts in the analysis conducted earlier. The other aspect that should also be investigated further is any other reference in a fourteenth-century manuscript in Hilandar’s present collection (those manuscripts which were not part of Groups A-F) that has previously been in dicated as being "identical" (or "virtually identical") to a watermark album source. Given the high degree of corre lation (60%-75&) of such identifications for the previous group investigated, it might prove useful to continue this line of research, as well. In addition to those watermarks which have been identified as "identical" from Groups A-F as shown in Table 16, the other fourteenth-century watermarks, not from fourteenth-century manuscripts from Groups A-F, iden tified as such are shown in Table 19. These identifications are again based on the work, Watermarks of the Hilandar..., 120 (if asterisked /*/ in the Table, these watermarks have previously been identified as "virtually identical" or "almost identical").^2 121 TABLE 19 ADDITIONAL FOURTEENTH CENTURY WATERMARKS IDENTIFIED AS "IDENTICAL" IN HILANDAR MANUSCRIPTS MS. # WATERMARK ALBUM REFERENCE 178* Cross M.-Tr. 3588 178* Pear M.-Tr. 4402 181* Crescent M.-Tr. 3425 268* Bow and Arrow M.-Tr. 427 299 Bird (DB)** M.-Tr. 6663 391* Keys M.-Tr. 2738 397* Ox-head M.-Tr. 1317 399* Apple M.-Tr. 4907 399* Keys M.-Tr. 2738 455 Pear (DB) M.-Tr. 4326 456 Bird (DB) M.-Tr. 6666 471 Pear (DB) M.-Tr. 4368 471* Circles CDB) M.-Tr. 2107 759/X Three Mounts M.-Tr. 6321 An analysis of the sources in the watermark albums of Mosin-Traljic reflects the relationships which are shown in Table 20 on the next page:43 **"DB" next to a watermark identification is an ab breviation for Dimitrije Bogdanovic and signifies that the watermark was only identified by him in his work. Kata- log. . . . and was apparently not copied by M. Matejic.**4 122 TABLE 20 PAPER UTILIZED FOR ALBUM SOURCES (WATERMARKS) IDENTIFIED AS "IDENTICAL" IN HILANDAR MANUSCRIPTS (From Table 19) ALBUM REFERENCE PAPER SOURCE M.-Tr. 427 i Dub. ad DC XXVII/Likhachev 2346 M.-Tr. 1317 Dubrovnik AL XIV M.-Tr. 2107 Pec 98/Pec 109 M.-Tr. 2738 Decani 39 M.-Tr. 3425 msl Miinchen (KW 48) M.-Tr. 3588 Zeevond (Hollande) M.-Tr. 4176 Zagreb, Doc. DA Z-IV/46 M.-Tr. 4346 Decani 75 M.-Tr. 4368 Decani 27 M.-Tr. 4402 Decani 75 M.-Tr. 6321 Likhachev 2323 M.-Tr. 6663 Zagreb JA III-a-41 M.-Tr. 6666 Venice An analysis of these sources indicates that water marks #427, #1317, #3588, #4176 and #6666 are from docu ments or archives. For the sources for which we have this information, the size of the paper would suggest this.45 Also, there is again no other "cf." reference, which is otherwise typical of these authors when codices were uti lized. For #3425 (msl Miinchen /KW 48/), the source, F. Keintz, could not be f o u n d . 46 The watermark albums of 123 Mosin-Traljic or of Likhachev are utilized for the infor mation found in Table 21. Succeeding pages will provide more information and fuller citations. TABLE 21 CODICES UTILIZED FOR ALBUM SOURCES (WATERMARKS) IDENTIFIED AS IDENTICAL IN HILANDAR MANUSCRIPTS (From Table 20) PAPER SOURCE CODEX Pec 98* "Sermons of St. Dositei" Ped 109* "Book of Rules/Typikon" Decani 27 Apostolos Decani 39** Menaion for June Decani 75*** "Teachings of Isaac of Svria" Likhachev #2323 "Misture di Biccherna" Likhachev #2346 "Typikon" (Sevast * f^Lnov 39) Zagreb JA III-a-41 "Sinodik" An analysis of these sources provides the following information: *Both Pec #98 and #109 refer to the same watermark (#2107 in the Mosin-Traljid album).^8 **This is the source for #2738, found in both Hilan dar manuscript #391 and Hilandar manuscript #399.^9 ***This manuscript, Decani #75, is the source for two different watermarks identified as "identical", #4326 (in Hilandar manuscript #455) and #4402 (in Hilandar manu script #178). 124 Pec #98, according to Mosin, is a codex contain- in the "Sermons of St. Dositei" and is 15x20 cm. in s i z e . 4? However, such a manuscript with this title could not be found in the Inventar... of Bogdanovic. For the manuscript with this number, he lists a "Ladder" from the second quarter of the fifteenth century. He also lists it as 14.5x22.5 cm. in size.^1 it does not appear to be the same codex given by Mosin. Other sources for this collec tion could not, unfortunately, be located. Thus, there is no further information for this watermark source at this time. Another codex given by Mosin for the same watermark was also from the Pec collection. This was #109, a "Typi- kon and Book of Rules", 13x 20 cm. in s i z e .^2 However, again this manuscript could not be located in the Inven tar. ... and was not even listed as a source (which means, according to the introduction provided by the author, that it is later than the seventeenth century in date, the year 1700, specifically).^2 Thus, this codex, too, could not be located and no further information is available at this time. Likhachev #2323 (Mosin-Tralji6 #427) is given as the source for the watermark. According to information in the Likhachev albums, this is again a manuscript from the Sevast’ianov collection, #39. Likhachev quotes Viktorov as stating that the codex is a "Life of St. Basil the New". It is of Serbian recension, 76 folia in length. Water marks #2321 and #2322 in Likhachev are also from the same 125 codex.®^ Viktorov does not provide any additional infor mation on the possible place of copying of this codex.®® It is, however, important to note that once again a manu script of Serbian recension in a Russian collection has been found. Likhachev #2346 (Mosin-Traljic #427) is given as one of the sources for this watermark. Likhachev indi cates that #2346 (together with watermarks forming the group with numbers 2331-2351) was found in Pogodin #873, a "Collection" of the later fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. He also indicates that the codex was copied by three different hands, probably working simultaneously on this codex.®® Pogodin #873 has recently been described in greater detail by the Bulgarian scholar, Kl. Ivanova. She indicates that the codex is a "Collection of Homilies for Major Feast Days, from September through March...", a "Panegyrikon" of sorts. According to her, there are six scribes. The codex is 300 leaves, 28.5x19.5 cm. in size. There is no indication of the place of copying of the co dex. It is of Serbian recension.®^ Thus, once more a manuscript of Serbian recension in a Russian collection has been located. Decani #27 (Mosin-Traljic #4368) represents an "Apostolos".®® According to information provided in the Inventar.... the manuscript has 254 leaves, 26.5x20 cm. in size. It is of Serbian recension. Information regarding the possible scriptorium of this codex is not provided.®® 126 Decani #39 (Mosin-Traljic #2738) represents a "Menaion for June”.®® The same watermark appears in both Hilandar manuscript #391 and #399. According to informa tion provided in the Inventar... of Bogdanovic, Decani #39 has 204 leaves (some were added in the fifteenth century), 28.5x 21 cm. in size. It is of Serbian recension. Infor mation regarding the possible scriptorium of this codex is not provided.®! Decani #75 (Mosin-Traljic #4326 and #4402) re presents a "Collection with the Ladder and Teachings of Isaac of Syria".®® On the basis of information provided in the Inventar..., it is 462 leaves, 28.5x21 cm. in size. It is of Serbian recension.®® Information regarding the possible scriptorium of this codex is not otherwise pro vided. Yugoslav Academy III-a-41 (Mosin-Tralji6 #6663) is a "Synodikon".®^ This manuscript was described more fully by Mosin. It has 47 leaves, 14x21.5 cm. in size. It, also, is of Serbian recension (single-jer orthography). The codex was at one time #38 in the collection of Mihano- vi6. There is no direct indication of the place of pro duction of this manuscript.®® Although Mosin suggests that this codex does not necessarily come from Hilandar Monas tery, he also states that it at one time belonged to Miha- novic, who collected codices, particularly from Mt. Athos, and especially from Hilandar Monastery. Mosin suggests that the presence of later Greek inscriptions in the codex 127 makes it more likely that it came from somewhere other than Hilandar Monastery. However, there is no definite proof (or even a likely suggestion) of its having come from elsewhere. Since Mihanovid spent a good deal of time in Thessaloniki (which is near Mt. Athos), and since Thes saloniki is where the manuscript was seen by Grigorovic, according to Mosin, we suggest that the presence of Greek inscriptions would just as easily be explained by the co dex possibly having come from Hilandar Monastery. While this argues a case for this manuscript to have come from Hilandar Monastery, it does not necessarily make a claim for Hilandar Monastery as its scriptorium. However, of all the codices indicated in this latter group, this one shows at least a possible (this author would suggest pro bable) link to Hilandar Monastery. The analysis of the watermarks from Hilandar codices not belonging to Groups A-F identified as "identical" to sources in the watermark albums of Mosin and Traljid recon firms conclusions drawn from the previous analysis of such watermarks from Hilandar manuscripts (from Groups A-F). Once again it has been shown that watermarks in Mosin- Trajlid that are utilized from single-leaf documents show no relationship to Hilandar Monastery. Yet, it has also been shown that when a codex was the source utilized in the watermark album, it was, in all eight cases, of Ser bian recension. Thus, the paper may, in fact, show poten tial relationships among these manuscripts. 128 The fact that none of the codices investigated as a result of this analysis show a direct relationship to Hi landar Monastery is not of consequence,* since the water marks to which they relate belong to Hilandar manuscripts that are, as yet, unattributed to Hilandar Monastery. Al so, it should again be noted that the codices in question do not appear to show a relationship to any scriptorium at this time. An analysis of the references to watermarks found in Group X indicates the following:®® Mosin-Traljic #4913 (from Krusedol #60 /55?!/) led to the following watermark references from the same manu script: #404, #406, #453, #2446, #5578-#5581. Mosin-Traljic #5121 (from Decani #62) led to the following watermark references from the same manuscript: #389, #2382-#2383, #3598, #3926-#3927, #4336, #5119-#5120, #5743-#5744. ♦Hilandar Slavic manuscript fragment #759/X was shown earlier in this chapter to belong to Hilandar Slavic codex #396. It is interesting to note that the watermark which led to the investigation of this relationship and determi nation was Mosin-Traljic #6321, which in turn was origi nally published by Likhachev. The codex in which it was found (Sevast*ianov #39) is of the exact same type as Hi landar Slavic manuscript #396 ("Life/Rules of St. Basil the Great"). However, the 76 folia— it is not a complete codex— of Sevast’flnov #39 do not appear, based on the description of Viktorov, to belong to Hilandar #396.®^ Mosin-Traljic #5262 (from JA III-b-15) led to the following watermark references from the same manuscript: #1981, #4336-#4337, #4372. Mosin-Traljic #5303 (from Decani #5) led to the following watermark references from the same manuscript: #1839, #3048, #3052, #4424-#4425, #5934-#5936, #6878. Table 22 on the next two pages gives a brief des cription of the watermarks found in those manuscripts that constitute Group X. 130 TABLE 22 WATERMARKS* IN MANUSCRIPTS PRODUCED IN HILANDAR THAT ARE FOUND OUTSIDE HILANDAR MONASTERY ALBUM REFERENCE WATERMARK M-Tr. #389 Bow and Arrow M-Tr. #404 Bow and Arrow M-Tr. #406 Bow and Arrow M-Tr. #453 Bow and Arrow M-Tr. #1839 Star within Circle with Cross M-Tr. #1981 Two Circle’s crossed by Staff M-Tr. #2382 Cardinal’s Cap M-Tr. #2383 Cardinal’s Cap M-Tr. #2446 Horse’s Heads M-Tr. #3048 Bell within Circle M-Tr. #3052 Bell within Circle M-Tr. #3598 "Lorraine" Cross M-Tr. #3926 Trefoil (form of Cross) M-Tr. #3927 Trefoil (form of Cross) M-Tr. #4336** Pear with 2 Leaves M-Tr. #4337 Pear with 2 Leaves M-Tr. #4372 Pear with 2 Leaves M-Tr. #4424 Pear with 2 Leaves M-Tr. #4425 Pear with 2 Leaves *This is not meant to imply that all such watermarks or manuscripts have been found and are included here. **The watermark is found in both Decani #62 and JA III-b-15.68 131 TABLE 22 (continued) ALBUM REFERENCE WATERMARK « M-Tr. #4913 Hunter’s Horn M-Tr. #5119 Letter "A” M-Tr. #5120 Letter "A” M-Tr. #5121 Letter "A" M-Tr. #5262 Letter "G" with Cross M-Tr. #5303 Letter "L" M-Tr. #5578 Letter "R" M-Tr. #5579 Letter "R” M-Tr. #5580 Letter "R" M-Tr. #5581 Letter "R” M-Tr. #5743 Letters "GG” M-Tr. #5744 Letters "GG" M-Tr. #5934 Unicorn M-Tr. #5935 Unicorn M-Tr. #5936 Unicorn M-Tr. #6878 Vase/Pot Table 23 on the next two pages will provide a des cription of those watermarks found in Likhachev that are from manuscripts for which we have information that they were produced in Hilandar Monastery®^. Reference here is made to Sevast’fanov #27, Sinodal’ #148 (#1032) and the Anan’in codices. These watermarks will have an "L" pre- ceeding their number. TABLE 23 WATERMARKS IN MANUSCRIPTS PRODUCED IN HILANDAR THAT ARE FOUND OUTSIDE HILANDAR MONASTERY ALBUM REFERENCE WATERMARK L. #778 Helmet ? L. #779 Helmet? L. #780 Helmet? L. #781 Helmet? L. #782 Horse’s Heads L. #783 Demi-Deer L. #785 Bow and Arrow L. #786 Bow and Arrow L. #787 Bow and Arrow L. #788 Hunter’s Horn L. #789 Hunter’s Horn L. #790 Orb? with Cross L. #800 Leopard L. #801 Leopard L. #802 Leopard L. #803 "Baril" L. #804 "Baril" L. #805 "Baril" L. #806 Two Circles crossed by Staff L. #807 Two Circles crossed by Staff L. #808 folio from the XVI century L. #809 Hunter’s Horn L. #810 Hunter’s Horn L. #811 Hunter’s Horn L. #812 Hunter’s Horn I 133 TABLE 23 (continued) ALBUM REFERENCE WATERMARK L. #813 Hunter’s Horn L. #814 Hunter’s Horn L. #815 Pear Table 24 on the next two pages will show the result of the comparisons of over 100 watermarks and fragments of watermarks to the specific sources indicated in Tables 20 and 21. 134 TABLE 24 RELATIONSHIPS SHOWN BETWEEN WATERMARK ALBUM SOURCES AND WATERMARKS IN HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPTS (From Tables 22 and 23) WATERMARK SOURCE RELATES TO M-Tr. #1981 #79?(f.207). #471(f.42) M-Tr. #2446* #254(f.108). #474(f.62) M-Tr. #3926 #454(f.17 fr.) M-Tr. #3927 #143(f.17). #454(f.58 fr.) M-Tr. #4336** #127 (f.3), #256(f.25), #257(f.20) M-Tr. #4337 #127?(f.l), #144?(f.1), #257?(f.19) M-Tr. #4913*** #19(f. unid.), #254(f.4), #474(f.2. 18). #760/1(2.3) M-Tr. #5121**** #257(f. 86) M-Tr. #5262***** #256?(f.129), #257?(f.241) ♦Appears to be the same watermark as L. #782. **The same watermark is found in Decani #62 and JA III-b-15.70 ***This watermark appears to be the same as L. #788. ****This is the actual source for the watermark in folio 86 in Hilandar Manuscript #257. It was originally incorrectly identified in the work, Watermarks.... as the "Letter H", due to its peculiar configuration.71 *****0ur watermarks are "identical", except that they do not show the horizontal portion of the cross, i.e., only a staff or bar is shown in our examples. TABLE 24 (continued) WATERMARK SOURCE RELATES TO M-Tr. #5303 #48(f.212) M-Tr. #6878 #48(f.61) L. #782# #254(f.108). #474(f.62) L. #786 #618(f.46, 49) L. #787 #254(f.185) L. #788** #19(f. unid.), #254(f.4), #474(f.2. 18). #760/1(2.3) L. #789 #19(f. unid.) L. #802 #389(f.446. 469) L. #805*** #19?(f.unid.), #55?(f.16), #392?(f.77) L. #807 #19(f.23), #477(f.71), #646?(f.18) L. #815**** #392?(f.432), #420(f.10), #476?(f.365), #760 ?/V(DB) *Appears to be the same watermark as M-Tr. #2446. **Appears to be the same watermark as M-Tr. #4913. ***Appears to be the same watermark as M-Tr. #941. ****Appears to be the same watermark as M-Tr. #4240 136 An analysis of the above results from Table 24 indi cates that there are interrelationships of paper among ma nuscripts that are found in Groups A, B, C, D, and F with the paper in manuscripts found in Group X.* Specifically, there is further confirmation of manu scripts #127, #143, #389 (with it #388--the original attri bution to monk Iov of Hilandar Monastery was by Cernic for manuscripts #388 and #389) as well as #474 of Group B . ^ There is also further justification of our attribu tion of manuscripts #19 and #254 from Group C. In addition, there is further justification for the attribution of ma nuscripts #257 and #454 from our Group D and for #256 and 760/1 from our Group E. *It should be noted that not all the relationships shown from Group X were originally cited in the work Wa termarks ... In part this is true because other sources were used, in part because it was not sufficiently clear that watermarks in two different albums may come from the same document/manuscript source (i.e., that Mosin-Traljic #4240 is a copy of Likhachev 815).^ It is also true, however, that not all of these iden tifications were made because the very best identification was not always chosen. Or, as in the case of M-Tr. #5121 indicated in Table 24, the best possible identification was made according to the album source, but it was incor rectly described as the "Letter H", when it is, in fact, the "Letter A" (which is barely crossed at the top, making it look much more like an "H"). It should be kept in mind that the purpose of the work, Watermarks... was to assist in the dating of the codices of the Hilandar Slavic Col lection.1^ At no time yet has it been indicated that an identification was sufficiently inaccurate to make dating incorrect (dating with paper usually provides only a range, and not a specific year). The purpose of showing inter relationships of assumedly the "same" paper, by definition, requires a different and this author would suggest greater precision. It is only the technique— comparison— that is similar. 137 Most importantly also are the relationships to Hi landar Slavic manuscripts in the collection which have not, as yet, been attributed to Hilandar Monastery. These are #143, #420, #471, #477 and #618. On the strength of the relationship of Hilandar ma nuscripts #477 to Sinodal’ #48 and #618 to the Anan’in co dex, attribution of these manuscripts to the scriptorium of Hilandar is suggested. In addition to the relationship of each of these manuscripts to manuscripts produced in Hilandar monastery, their attribution is also prompted by the fact that they share a watermark in common. This wa termark is a "demi griffin". It is virtually identical to Mosin-Traj1ic #1046 and #1068.^5 Thus, based on the rela tionship of their paper, these two manuscripts are recom mended for attribution to the scriptorium of Hilandar Mo nastery. * The "demi-griffin" in Hilandar manuscripts #477 and #618 is possibly also found in four other manuscripts in the Hilandar collection: #255, #375, #391 and #612. It is suggested, however, that further evidence is needed be fore these manuscripts, too, are attributed to the scrip torium of Hilandar Monastery. *Hilandar Slavic manuscript $477 has been attributed to Danilac "Levooki" by L. Cernic. She believes he worked in Decani Monastery, although there is no direct evidence of where he spent his life.^® This would signify that Da- nilats, at least for this portion of his life (late four teenth and early fifteenth centuries), is probably associ ated with and a scribe of Hilandar Monastery. 138 Thus, in addition to providing additional supporting evidence for earlier attributions of Hilandar manuscripts to known Hilandar scribes made by L. Cernic and by the present author in this dissertation, this portion of the research has provided direct evidence for the attribution of Hilandar manuscripts #477 and #618. The research conducted for this dissertation has suggested the attribution of a total of 19 manuscripts, presently housed in Hilandar Monastery, as products of the monastery’s scriptorium. Seventeen of these manuscripts were attributed in the previous chapter on the basis of the relationships of their paper to manuscripts known to be or attributed to be products of Hilandar Monastery either through scribal notes or through traditional paleographic comparison. Two addi tional manuscripts (and the scribe, Danilats) were recom mended for attribution to Hilandar Monastery based on the relationship of their paper to six manuscripts produced in Hilandar but which are now in other collections outside the monastery. Research related to these six manuscripts of Hilan dar Monastery references to which were found through the relationship of their paper to codices known or attributed 139 to Hilandar Monastery, in itself constitutes proof of the validity of the proposed theory and methodology. In addition to the attributions and other investiga tions conducted, through the paper comparisons conducted it was shown to which manuscripts two fragments (#739/111 and #759/X) in the Hilandar Slavic Manuscript Collection belong. Thus, both evidence and concrete results have been presented regarding the validity of the theory of manu script attribution through paper analysis. It should be noted that nothing in the nineteen ma nuscripts that are suggested for attribution to Hilandar Monastery would deny such a possibility. Of the nineteen manuscripts, sixteen are of Serbian recension with Rascian orthography. This appears to be standard for Hilandar Mo nastery. Of the approximately* twelve parchment manuscripts known or attributed to be products of Hilandar Monastery all are of this recension and orthography; the same is true for thirteen or fourteen Hilandar manuscripts written on paper. *The term "approximately" is being used because it is not clear for all the manuscripts for which we have the name of the scribe that the scribe is associated with Hi landar Monastery and its scriptorium. In point of fact, all Hilandar manuscripts of the fourteenth century for which we have the name of the scribe and the place of pro duction, whether indicated to be Hilandar Monastery or not, are of this recension and orthography. This is also true for all fourteenth-century Hilandar manuscripts that were attributed by L. Cernic, (see Appendices E and F at the end of this dissertation).*^ 140 The other three manuscripts that are attributed are of Bulgarian* recension and are datable to 1325-1350 (most likely during the 1330’s).** This, however, is not neces sarily a contradiction of the suggestion that they were produced in Hilandar Monastery. It is precisely during this period of time that the Serbian empire is expanding to the south and east.7** It is during this period that it would be logical to see an influx of scribes from these regions coming into traditional Serbian monasteries and scriptoria. *Dimitrije Bogdanovic indicated that two of these Hilandar manuscripts, #142 and #146, are of the "Macedo nian" recension. The author of the dissertation prefers to use the term, "Bulgarian", when fourteenth-century ma nuscripts are involved. This is not in any way intended to be a denial of the existence of the contemporary lite rary Macedonian language or of its historical development.7^ **Two of these manuscripts, #142 and #146, were dated (in part) "fourth decade of the fourteenth century" by D. Bogdanovic. The third, #226, was dated by him as "third quarter of the fourteenth century.**** jt is the belief of this author, based on a previous analysis of the paper, that it, too, should be dated "second quarter of the four teenth century".*- This would signify that it would have been produced at approximately the same time as Hilandar manuscripts #142 and #146.***- in this case the determina tion of the orthography of Hilandar manuscript #226 as that of "Turnovo" would also need to be reevaluated. Thus, a traditional paleographic and historical in vestigation, tends to support although not necessarily to affirm the attribution of the nineteen Hilandar Slavic ma nuscripts that are attributed through paper comparison and analysis. There is certainly no denial of such possible attribution. ENDNOTES CHAPTER IV ^•Based on, P. Matejic, Watermarks. . . . pp. 1-287. ^Refers to, Mosin-Traljic, Vodeni.... and N. Likha chev, Paleograficheskoe... 3P. Matejic, Watermarks.... pp. 326-328. ^P. Matejic, Watermarks..., ibid. ^Briquet, Les Filigranes.... Vol. 3, p. 482. Gflased on, Mosin-Traljic, Vodeni..., Vol. I, pp. 53- 173. ^P. Matejic, Watermarks..., pp. 175-176. 8Ibid., pp. 133-134. 8Based on, Mosin-Tral j ic, Vodeni,..., Vol. I, pp. 53- 173. l^Mosin-Traljic, Vodeni,..., Vol. I-II, and Likhachev, Paleograficheskoe.... V. III. HReference is made to, Briquet, Les Filigranes... l^Mosin-Traljic, Vodeni,..., Vol. I, pp. 58; 136; 135. 13Ibid. l^See, for example, Mosin-Traljic, Vodeni.... Vol. I, p. 62 (watermark #441). l®Likhachev, Paleograficheskoe.... Vol. I, pp. 9; 83-84; 85. l^Ibid., p. 9. l^Ibid., p. 83. 18A. Viktorov, Sobranie rukopisei P. /. Sevast’fh- nova, (Moskva, 1881), pp. 47-53. 142 143 l^Ibid. 20Bogdanovic, Katalog..., pp. 128-129. ^Likhachev, Paleograf icheskoe. . . . Vol. I, p. 85. 22Gorskii-Nevostruev, Opisanie slavianskilTh. . . . Vol. I-111 23(josudarstvennyi Ordena Lenina Istoricheskii Muzei. Opisanie rukopisei Sinodal’nogo Sobranii'tl (ne voshedshitch v opisanie A. V. Gorskogo i K. I. Nevostrueva, II (Nos. 820-1051), (Moscow, 1973), pp. 122-123. ^Bogdanovic, Inventar.... pp. 17-141. 2^Ibid., (item #1415), p. 99. 260pj sanie rukopisei Sinodal’nogo.... pp. 122-123. 2?Bogdanovic, Inventar.... (item #1868), p. 124. Also, Cernic, "0 Atribuciji...," pp. 338-339. 33Cernic, "0 Atribuciji...," ibid. 29flogdanovic, Inventar..., (item #1736), p. 117. 30Ibid. •^Cernic, "0 Atribuciji...," p. 339. 32Mosin-Traljic, Vodeni.... Vol. I, pp. 53-173. 33Bogdanovic, Inventar.... (item #1008), p. 75. ^Likhachev, paleograf icheskoe. . . . Vol. I, pp. 80-83. 3®Cernic, "0 Atribuciji...," (under MSPC #49), p. 353. 3®Bogdanovi6, Inventar...« (item #204), p. 28. Com pare the information for Krusedol #60 (now MSPC #224), which is a "Leitourgikon" of Bulgarian recension and which is dated "seventeenth century". Bogdanovic, Inventar.♦.. (item #1509), p. 104. 3^Mosin, Cirilskih.... p. 44. 380jE>i sanie rukopisei Sinodal’nogo.... pp. 122-123. 3^Cernic, "0 Atribuciji...," pp. 337-358. 144 49Gorskii-Nevostruev, Opisanie slavians kiich. . . , Vol. I, pt. 1, pp. 53-59. 41Ibid., pp. 338-339. 4^P. Matejic, Watermarks..., pp. 326-328. 48Mosin-Traljic, Vodeni..., Vol. I, pp. 53-173. 44See, P. Matejic, Watermarks. . . . p. IX. 45Ibid. 46Ibid., p. 111. 4^Ibid., p. 89. 48Ibid. 49P. Matejic, Watermarks..., pp. 132, 137-138. 88Mosin-Traljic, Vodeni..., Vol. I, p. 127, and P. Matejic, Watermarks..., pp. 161; 61. 8^Bogdanovic, Inventar. . . , (item #507), p. 48. S^Mosin-Traljic, Vodeni..., Vol. I, p. 89. 88Bogdanovic, Inventar..., p. 9. 84Likhachev, Paleograficheskoe.... Vol. I, pp. 235- 236. 88Viktorov, Sobranie rukopisei.... pp. 61-62. 88Likhachev, Paleograficheskoe..., Vol. I, pp. 237- 238. 5?ivanova, Bulgarski. srubski.... pp. 358-374. 88Mosin-Tral ji6 v. I, op., cit. , p. 127. 59Bogdanovic, Inventar..., op. cit., (item #54), p. 20. 88Mosin-Traljic, Vodeni..., Vol. I, p. 100. ^Bogdanovic, Inventar..., (item #636), p. 55. ^Mosin-Tral jic, Vodeni..., Vol. I, p. 127. ®8Bogdanovi6, Inventar.... (item #261), p. 32. 145 ^Mosin-Tral jic, Vodeni.... Vol. I, p. 162. ®^Mosin, tfirilskih.... pp. 59-61. 88Mosin-Traljic, Vodeni.... Vol. I, pp. 53-173. 87Viktorov, Opisanie rukopisei.... pp. 61-62. 88Mosin-Traljic, Vodeni...., Vol. I, p. 127. ^Likhachev, Paleograf icheskoe. . . , Vol. I, pp. 9; 83-84; 85. 78Mosin-Traljic, Vodeni...., Vol. I, p. 127. 7*P. Matejic, Watermarks.... pp. 91-92. ^Cernic, "0 Atribuciji...," p. 353. 78P. Matejic, Watermarks..., p. 133, for example. Mosin-Traljic, Vodeni..., Vol. I, p. 125. 7^P. Matejic, Watermarks..♦, p. III. ^Mosin-Tral j ic, Vodeni . . . . Vol. I, p. 72. 78Cernic, "0 Atribuciji...," pp. 339-341; 354-356. 77Ibid., pp. 337-358. 78por a recent work in which this territory and is sues of expansion and Hilandar Monastery are discussed, see Petar Milich, Beyond Mimesis: A Study in Byzantine- Serbian Acculturation in the Light of Two Hilandar Chryso- bulls, M.A. Thesis, Department of History, The Ohio State University, (Columbus, Ohio), 1987. ^Bogdanovic, Katalog.... pp. 93, 94. 80Ibid., p. 113. 8^P. Matejic, Watermarks..., pp. 76-77. CONCLUSION MANUSCRIPT ATTRIBUTION THROUGH PAPER: IMPLICATIONS A. Implications for Archeography/Paleographv The first and overriding implication of the methodo logy, results and suggested proofs of validity discussed in the previous chapters is that attribution through paper comparison and analysis is a valid method of manuscript attribution. The proofs are based on the following: 1) after comparisons of hundreds of different samples of wa termarks in dozens of categories of types, the determina tion of the presence of direct paper interrelationships among known manuscripts of the Hilandar scriptorium with manuscripts attributed by the method proposed in this dis sertation; 2) the 60 to 752. reliability of this method in "discovering” codices produced in Hilandar Monastery on the basis of the "identical" nature of watermarks in at tributed manuscripts with watermarks in manuscripts that 146 147 were used as the sources for watermark albums (and this also serves as proof of the validity of the approach— comparison with implications of the "same” paper being found) . The implications of these results should be obvious. For the first time a valid method has been proposed for at tributing a manuscript to a scriptorium even when no other information regarding the scribe or scribes or the poten tial scriptorium is available. By means of traditional paleographic comparison and archeographic investigations, a researcher may be able to suggest attribution to a par ticular scribe, but not necessarily to a specific scripto rium. Such an attribution may occur if the scribe to which a particular manuscript is being attributed is a known scribe of a specific scriptorium. In situations where a scribe is believed to have worked in more than one loca tion, even in the case of attribution the specific scrip torium would remain, at best, an educated assumption. This method of attribution (through comparison of the scripts of scribes), however, relies on known scribes. There is no method that would attribute a manuscript to a scriptorium, except by means of an inscription to that ef fect. Thus, the method proposed in this dissertation sug gests, for the first time, a manner in which a number of manuscripts may be attributed with a fair degree of cer tainty, if their paper sufficiently interrelates with the 148 paper of manuscripts that were produced in a known scrip- tori urn. Thus far, this method has only been attempted with one scriptorium, that of Hilandar Monastery, and during one century, the fourteenth. It would seem likely that the method, though, would be just as valid for other scrip toria of the fourteenth century. It also seems that the method would be valid for the first half of the fifteenth century (before the printed book). After the middle of the fifteenth century there was an increased need for paper to satisfy the demands of both printing and manuscript co pying. There were more paper mills, and improvements in the methods of making paper would, undoubtedly, have in creased the volume of paper being produced by one mill. This then would also have an effect on the suggested method for manuscript attribution. This, however, is supposition, and, in fact, the method may possibly be valid for later periods of time, as well. The method is, to the best of this author’s know ledge, new. This also means that there is, as yet, no corroborating evidence that the method works for other scriptoria. Other studies modeled along the same lines would be very welcome. It should be kept in mind that this method and type of analysis probably work best where a so- called organic or "closed collection1* is involved. This is a collection in which a scriptorium is also known to have existed. Such a collection should, hopefully, provide 149 a sufficient body of internal evidence to begin such a complex investigation. It should also be stressed that the methodology and results, because they relate to a scriptorium and not to known scribes, proffers certain advantages. It is not de pendent on knowing who the scribes of a scriptorium during a given period of time were. Thus, a manuscript in which the scribe’s or scribes’ hands (scripts) are unknown may still be attributed to a specific scriptorium. The results, in turn, however, may increase the number of scribes that can be associated with a scriptorium, which, then, in creases the number of scribes’ hands (scripts) available for traditional paleographic comparison. On the other hand, because this methodology is spe cific to scriptoria, and not necessarily to any given scribe or scribes, there should be less of a tendency to only seek to attribute through paleography those manu scripts that represent the norm for a given scriptorium. In other words, it is probably not coincidence that only Serbian manuscripts have previously been attributed to Hi landar Monastery during the fourteenth century.* It is natural to investigate such manuscripts, in view of the fact that the known scribes of Hilandar Monastery during the fourteenth century wrote or copied in the Serbian re cension. This method of manuscript attribution makes easier the attribution of those manuscripts that do not 150 represent the norm for a specific scriptorium during a gi ven period of its existence and productivity. It is not illogical (based on the methodology of using a "neutral" medium such as paper), for example, that during the course of this dissertation three manuscripts of "Bulgarian" recension were attributed. It is not un reasonable to accept a conclusion that manuscripts of "Bul garian" recension were also copied in Hilandar Monastery, especially for the period of time indicated (second quar ter of the fourteenth century). We know of Slavic manu scripts that were produced in The Great Lavra Monastery (which is Greek), for example.2 We can also expect manu scripts of other recensions; for scribes of a somewhat different, but related, ethnic background to have lived and worked in Hilandar Monastery. Therefore, there is a certain advantage to the proposed method, because it looks at the recension only after there is already a reason to examine it and the other paleographic features of the ma nuscript. The methodology first attempts to establish the possibility of attribution by means of a completely neutral medium, that is, the types of paper that were in use in the scriptorium under study, because the paper, too, can be of archeographic significance. 151 The methodology and results of the paper comparison and attributions have shown an additional benefit of this method: it supports the attributions provided by tradi tional paleographic comparison. Thus, a number of the ma nuscripts which L. Cernic would attribute to Hilandar Mo nastery were confirmed during the course of these investi gations. 3 The proposed method, then, may be used hand in hand with traditional paleographic investigations with at tribution as their goal. It has also been shown that the proposed method is of value in identifying to which manuscripts fragments be long. By indicating a link of the paper found in both a manuscript and a fragment, it provides the initial impetus to investigate whether the fragment in question belongs to the codex in question. Thus, this method may be of assis tance in locating the codices to which fragments belong, whether both the given manuscript and fragment are in one location, or separated. Although only as a peripheral benefit, it has also been demonstrated that the proposed methodology can assist in the determination of the location of manuscripts from the same scriptorium where such manuscripts have been scattered. Thus, it can be of peripheral assistance in the reconstruction of a fourteenth-century medieval scripto- ri um. 152 As more and more countries make efforts to provide at least a brief description of their manuscript holdings, this peripheral benefit will decline in importance, since the information will be otherwise available in what should be more easily accessible sources. However, two things should be kept in mind: the length of time it takes to prepare such descriptions; and the fact that not all manu scripts described, for example, in the nineteenth century or even later, are still in existence today.* Thus, there are a number of benefits that the pro posed methodology offers to the study of fourteenth- century manuscripts. In time, as the method is verified and hopefully accepted on a wider scale, it is hoped that additional benefits to paleography may be developed on its basis. *For example, there is a catalog of the manuscripts that were housed in the National Library of Serbia in 1941 when it burned to the ground on April 6 after a bombing raid. None of the manuscripts known to have been there at the time have ever been found and it is assumed that they were all lost in the fire.^ 153 B. Implications for Hilandar Monastery By virtue of the fact that an additional nineteen manuscripts have been proposed for attribution to the fourteenth-century scriptorium of Hilandar Monastery and support has been provided for the earlier attribution of a number of manuscripts, the proposed method adds a substan tial body of information regarding the output of this scriptorium. This greater volume of manuscripts, works and scribes, in turn, produces a more substantial body of empirical evidence that may be analyzed or be used in va rious studies. However, it also provides certain imme diate conclusions. For example, on the basis of the in vestigations conducted thus far, it is clearer that Hilan dar Monastery adapted quickly to the potential offered by paper (as opposed to parchment). There is now additional evidence for the use of paper in Hilandar Monastery from approximately the 1330’s. This is rather early when it is kept in mind that paper essentially first came into use in Europe toward the end of the thirteenth century.® It is also clear that even until the end of the fourteenth cen tury the preferred orthography of Hilandar Monastery was Rascian, since all the manuscripts attributed are of this orthography if their recension is Serbian. Beyond what has been immediately added to the body of evidence, however, are the possibilities for other in vestigations . One such investigation, for example, could 154 be the length of time that one paper could be found in Hi landar Monastery during the fourteenth century (by compa ring the "same" paper found in different manuscripts and comparing information regarding the dates of these manu scripts). Such an investigation requires a rather large number of manuscripts that are attributed to Hilandar Mo nastery as their place of copying. Other possible areas of investigations are: 1) What were the types of manuscripts that were produced in Hilandar'Monastery during the fourteenth century? 2) How did the major trends of the fourteenth century (e.g., such as hesychasm) affect the monastery and how quickly were they reflected in its output? 3) Was there production of any manuscripts of similar content in sufficient volume and within a rela tively brief period of time that might lead to the conclu sion that Hilandar Monastery was the "distributor" of a given work or works (e.g., the "Chronograph of Georgios Hamartalos”); 4) Is Hilandar Monastery possibly the location of the "original" translation of such works? 5) What is the output of individual scribes; 6) Did Hilandar Monastery or any of its scribes "specialize" in certain types of works? 155 7) Can we speak of a "school" or "university" of sorts in Hilandar Monastery? 8) Do we have evidence of "first use" of a type of paper, and then subsequent use in diminishing quantities; 9) Can investigations along the lines of #8 above provide suggestions for even more accurate dating of undated manuscripts from Hilandar Monastery’s scriptorium? 10) What are the trends that are apparent in Hilandar Monastery as a scriptorium? 11) Based on a larger number of examples of the same type of work, are any trends or changes evident in the languages or recensions in use in Hilandar Monas tery? 12) Is it possible to reconstruct the scripto rium of Hilandar Monastery even more completely than I have? 13) If extended to other scriptoria, could this methodology help reveal the links between Hilandar Monas tery and other scriptoria? 14) What is the nature of the relationship of Hilandar Monastery to cities in Italy (the source for all of the paper used in Hilandar during the fourteenth cen tury) ? These and many other possible investigations in li terature, linguistics, paleography and archeography of the fourteenth century, all benefit from the possibilities of 156 relying on a significantly expanded body of evidence and proposed evidence upon which to conduct their investiga tions . Such a potential expanded body of empirical evidence is now made more accessible to researchers because of the proposed methodology of manuscript attribution through pa per comparison and analysis. To the above list we may add broader considerations, such as the level of culture and education that this out put reflects. Is the level of culture and education indi cative of or specific to Mt. Athos, or of the Serbs, the South Slavs, of the whole of Orthodoxy, or is it specific to Hilandar Monastery? What was necessary in order to produce this level of activity? Although clearly speculative, such broader interpre tations would be based, in part, on a larger body of evi dence. And they would be far less speculative than had the same questions been interpreted on the basis of the previously known manuscripts of Hilandar Monastery’s scrip- toriua. 157 C. Implications for Watermark Recording and Studies While the manner in which watermarks have been re corded has always been of importance, the proposed metho dology provides additional reasons for the most accurate possible manner of recording watermarks. There is no doubt in the mind of the author of this dissertation, for exam ple, that the manner of recording the watermarks* in manu scripts of the Hilandar Slavic Collection led to the accu rate dating of those manuscripts copied on paper (if wa termarks were present and if they could be copied and were not overly fragmented). However, there is also little doubt that could the watermarks have been recorded in a different, more precise, manner the results indicated in the body of this dissertation would have been somewhat different. First of all, the results would have been more immediately obvious. It is also this author’s belief that more interrelationships of the paper would have been dis covered. Certain ambiguities (for example, the "pear” in Figures 1 and 2 of Chapter 2, or whether two circles had been intersected by a cross or a staff) would have been avoided. *It should once again be noted that the watermarks of this collection were recorded in the only manner possi ble— tracing. 158 Now that it has been demonstrated that paper can be utilized, almost in its own right, in manuscript attribu tion to a scriptorium, a strong argument is made to make every effort to record watermarks in as scientifically ac curate manner as possible. This probably involves the use of beta-radiographs. Then there could be little doubt, if any, whether paper was "identical" or not. Some small dif ference would exist, even with the "same" paper, because of small deformities in the wiremoulds used. It is be lieved, however, that these deformities would, in most cases, not hamper the .determination of "identical" paper in different manuscripts. There are also several implications for the manner in which watermarks are identified according to watermark album sources. The first implication has to do with the accuracy of the watermark in an album when that mark has been reproduced based on a tracing or is drawn (or traced) for the album. If it is necessary for the watermarks in a manuscript to be recorded accurately, then it is doubly so for those watermarks which are incorporated into watermark albums. Their accuracy may affect the level of accuracy of the dating, which will conceivably always be the pri mary function of watermark analysis and identification. However, because, thus far, having watermarks reproduced in an album is sometimes the only manner in which to see the watermarks used in a particular manuscript, it is also 159 important for purposes of the proposed methodology that they be as accurate as possible. In a similar situation where one has the opportunity to evaluate the watermarks in a collection, especially a "closed" collection, such as in a monastery, the author of this dissertation would urge that the watermarks not be identified (and dated) first by all watermarks belonging to a manuscript, but by the category/type of watermark re presented. Then the information for each of the water marks belonging to a manuscript would be gathered together in order to supply the necessary information for dating the manuscript. There are several reasons for this recommendation. The first concerns the dating of the document/s or manu script/s under investigation. By identifying the water marks by type (e.g., all circles that are intersected by crosses), the identification and dating of one watermark from a given manuscript will probably not subconsciously affect the manner in which the researcher dates the other watermarks from that same document or manuscript. It would, also, make clearer much sooner whether the "same" paper is found in different manuscripts, since the water marks would already have been grouped by type. It is also suggested that when watermarks from a given period of time are identified and dated, that the same source be utilized whenever possible. For example, in identifying and dating watermarks of the fourteenth 160 century, one may use several possible sources, including Briquet, Mosin-Traljid, Zonghi, Likhachev.® However, since some of the compilers of watermark albums utilized pre viously published sources, it is not always clear that one watermark may be, in fact, found in several sources. This, while not affecting the dating of a manuscript being dated with the assistance of information from the paper used, does affect the possible determination of the "same" paper being found in two different manuscripts.* For example, were one to identify the "pear" water mark in several codices, once indicating that it was ‘iden tical to Mosin-Traljic #4240’ and for a different manu script that it was identical to ‘Likhachev #815’, it might not be obvious, even to the researcher, that the Mosin- Tral j id album reproduces the watermark found in the Likha chev album.7 If the watermarks in the example are identi cal to both of these watermark album sources, the "same" paper is probably found in all three of the manuscripts (Sinodal’ #148/1032, the source for Likhachev #815 and thus for Mosin-Traljid #4240, and for the two manuscripts that are being analyzed).® Yet another option in this regard *The author of the dissertation does not in any man ner wish to imply that any wrong was done in using water marks from other albums when producing a later watermark album. There are several justifications for this practice, including, a desire to create the most complete possible source album for paleographic purposes, and the under standing that earlier albums are often difficult to use or are probably out of print and thus difficult to find in order to make use of them. 161 would be to indicate all possible sources when identifying and dating a watermark (i.e., both Likhachev and Mosin- Tral jic) . A further reason for identifying watermarks by group when researching and dating them is to avoid possible minor inaccuracies. These inaccuracies may be due to eyestrain or tiredness, or due to coming to the conclusion that the best identification, based on the source first used, has already been determined. If the watermarks in a collection are first organized by type, it is more efficient and thus it is possible that all available sources would have a greater tendency to be utilized by the researcher. As an example of this, were one to compare the iden tifications of watermarks in the Hilandar Slavic Collec tion as given in Watermarks... to those indicated within the body of this dissertation, a number of discrepancies would be noted.^ It should be stressed that these dis crepancies do not affect the dating of the manuscripts in question, but the identification and possibly the dating of the watermarks. The final justification for initially grouping wa termarks from a collection when identifying them relates to the greater likelihood that fragments of watermarks might be identified (at least by type). When a fragment of a watermark in a manuscript is clearly unlike any of the other watermarks in that manuscript, it may not be at all obvious what that fragment of a watermark represents. 162 By first grouping the watermarks to be investigated by type, one possibly reduces the situation to fewer "un knowns" . In regard to the Hilandar collection, for example, rather than having a situation where over 2,000 "unknowns" (watermarks) need to be identified, including dozens if not hundreds of very fragmented watermarks, first reducing all the watermarks to the number of types (probably only several hundred) would have made the work more efficient and less overwhelming. This might have made it more like ly for a fragmented portion of a watermark to have been "recognized". In turn, its having been recognized might have made it more likely for the fragment of a given wa termark to have been identified and possibly even dated. D. Other Recommendations Just as watermarks should be recorded more accurate ly, information regarding watermarks should also be more accurate and complete. While this author is not prepared to make a number of specific suggestions in this regard, he is aware that others have already done so.^ These recommendations, for example, would include the recording of the extent of each watermark type within a manuscript. They would also include more specific in formation about each watermark. For example, unless a watermark is described as "identical" to one in an album, 163 it is not always possible to ’picture’ the watermark on the basis of the description provided. A description may state something to the effect of "see, such and such in this or that album". Or, it may suggest a comparison to a source in a watermark album that is based on "very similar to", "similar to", or simply "type". It should be possi ble to standardize a descriptive type cataloging for wa termarks that would be based on measurable units: for example, the distance between chain and laid lines, or the distance between the chain lines and the contours of the watermark, or the highth and width of the watermark. By providing measurable information according to some standard and constant format, it would be possible for a watermark to be described in more understandable and objective means. A reference to an album would still pro bably be necessary, since this, in part, suggests the dating. The album reference would also be a point of re ference for someone who wishes to know what the watermark represents. However, the addition of the measurable evi dence makes categorization of watermarks more sophisti cated. This greater sophistication and standardization of description, in turn, makes possible the suggestion for a computerized database of such information. This would probably simplify and make more efficient the process of the initial identification of a given watermark, the 164 grouping of like watermarks with references to watermark album sources for examples of such watermarks, etc. It would probably be ideal to have a computerized data-base of actual watermark configurations. Rather than to spend a great deal of time searching for the best pos sible identification and dating of a given watermark, a program of comparison to dated watermarks would provide the initial identifications. There would still be a de finite need for a researcher to make the final analysis and determination, but the initial choices would have al ready been quickly found by the computer program for his or her analysis. The other great virtue that a database of this type would provide is that of a "unified catalog" of watermarks. Rather than searching in several different albums and sources in order to make a determination, the database would already contain all these sources and have them grouped together, thus eliminating a portion of the chance of error in not consulting or being able to consult a suf ficient body of sources (albums). Other information regarding paper could also be or ganized into databases.* *The Hilandar Research Library and Resource Center for Medieval Slavic Studies at The Ohio State University are already investigating the feasibility of creating the types of databases described. Given the implications of the potential for attribu tion of fourteenth century manuscripts based, in part, on paper comparison and analysis, accurate information that could be searched and located quickly (as in a database) may lead to further and more inclusive "linking" of manu scripts and thus to the attribution of manuscripts to spe cific scriptoria. It might be possible, then, to actually reconstruct at least some of the fourteenth century scrip toria, especially as improvements are made in the level and types of information provided regarding manuscripts, possibly in other kinds of databases. 166 To summarize: this dissertation has presented a new approach to the use and study of watermarks from paper of the fourteenth century. This new approach involves the complex comparison of all paper from the fourteenth cen tury that is found in one location. The library of Hilan- dar Monastery on Mount Athos served as the source. It has been demonstrated that there is an interrelationship of various paper types in the manuscripts belonging to this important collection. Therefore, it is possible to suggest the attribution of manuscripts for which there is no evidence of the loca tion in which they were produced by showing the relation ship of the paper of these manuscripts to the paper of ma nuscripts known to have been produced in Hilandar Monas tery. In this manner, nineteen manuscripts and the names of two scribes have been attributed to the scriptorium of Hilandar Monastery during the fourteenth century. In ad dition, support for the attribution of other manuscripts in this collection, previously provided by other scholars, has also been given. Thus, the methodology illustrated in the body of this dissertation has been shown to work ef fectively as an auxiliary tool to traditional paleographic attribution by means of comparison of scribes’ hands. 167 While the simple addition of a larger body of manu scripts to the scriptorium of Hilandar Monastery should provide in itself more material for a number of studies, there is also a strong possibility that the methodology discussed provides a scientific basis to assist scholar ship in the reconstructionof fourteenth century scriptoria. There is no reason, however, why the application of this methodology and form of analysis should only be limi ted to Hilandar Monastery, or to Slavic scriptoria of the fourteenth century. Thus, it is likely that the methodo logy and results of the analysis of paper for purposes of manuscripts attribution would be of interest to not only Slavicists, but possibly Western scholars of paleography, as well. ENDNOTES CONCLUSION ^Cernic, especially "0 Atribuciji...," pp. 335-358. ^M. Matejic and D. Bogdanovic, Slavic Codices of the Great lavra Monastery, A Description, (Sofia: CIBAL, in publication and expected 1987). ■^Cernic, "0 Atribuciji...,” pp. 335-358. ^Stojanovic, Katalog Narodne.... and Bogdanovi£, In- ventar.... pp. 191-222. Bogdanovic lists 850 manuscripts that were lost during the Second World War, including those of the National Library of Serbia. ^Augusto Zonghi, Watermarks in Paper Their Origin and Importance, (Hilversum, Holland: The Paper Publica tions Society, 1953, in series, Monumenta Chartae Papyra- ciae Historiam Illustrantia, III, Zonghi’s Watermarks,), p . 53. ^Briquet, Les Fi1igranes...; Mosin-Traljic, Vode- n_i. . . ; Zonghi, Watermarks . . . i and Likhachev, Paleograf i- cheskoe... ^Mosin-Trajlic, Vodeni.♦., Vol. I, p. 125. ^Likhachev, Paleograficheskoe.... Vol. I, p. 85. ^P. Matejic, Watermarks.... pp. 1-287. l^Institut issledovanifa i istorii tekstov biblio- grafii, soveshchaniia, podgotovitel*nye raboty, Instruk- f&ifiH po sastavlenifb opisanifst rukopisi, (National ’ nyi ffsentr nauchnyCh issledovanii, 1977), pp. 26-28. 168 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ar^ilHiovskii, A. V. Novgorodskie graaoty na bereste; iz raskopok 1951 g. Vols. 1-7. Moscow: AN SSSR, 1953- 1978. Bogdanovic, D. Inventar cirilskih rukopisa u Jugoslav!ji (XI-XVII veka). Belgrade: Srpska Akademija nauka i umetnosti, 1982. (In Zbornik za istoriju, jezik i knjizevnost srpskog naroda, I odeljenje, knj. 31). ______. Ratalog dirilskih rukopisa Manastira Hilandara. Beograd: Srpska Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti, Narod- na Biblioteka SR Srbije, 1978. ______. "Metod opisa rukopisa u Arheografskom odeljenju Narodne Biblioteke SRS u Beogradu." Bibliotekar 20 (1968), pp. 361-390. ______. "Pesnicka tvorenija monaha Jefrema." Hilandarski Zbornik 4 (1978), pp. 109-130. Bogdanovic, D., Buric, V. and Medakovic, D. Hilandar. Belgrade, 1978. Boraful1 y Sans, F. de A. Los Animales en las Marcas del Papel. Villanueva y Geltru (Barcelona), 1910. Briquet, C. M. Les Filigranes, Dictionnaire Historique des Marques du Papier des leur Apparition vers 1282 jusqu*en 1600. A Facsimile of the 1907 edition with supplementary material contributed by a number of scholars. Vol. I-IV. Edited by Allan Stevenson. Amsterdam: The Paper Publications Society /Labarre Foundation/, 1968. Cernic, L. "0 atribuciji srednjovekovnih srpskih cirilskih rukopisa." Tekstologija srednjovekovnih juznosloven- skih knjizevnosti. Naucni skup /14.-16. novembra 1977/. Beograd: Srpska Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti, 1981, pp. 335-425 169 170 ______. "Pisari Gracanickog /Lipljanskog/ Prologa-Mineja (Atribucija rukopisa kao mogucnost rekonstrukcije gracfe)." Arhiografski Prilozi I. Beograd: Narodna Biblioteka Srbije, 1979, pp. 133-165 + 1 unpaginated. Cherepnin, L. V. Russkaia paleografifh. Moscow: Gosu- darstvennoe izdatel’stvo politicheskoi literatury, 1956. Coleman, C. B. The Treatise of Lorenzo Valla on the Dona tion of Constantine. Text and Translation into Eng lish. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1922. Djordji6, P. Is torije srpske Sirilice. Belgrade, 1971. Duichev, I. "Turnovo kato politicheski i dulchoven tsentur prez kusnoto srednovekovie." Bulgarsko srednoveko- vie. Sofia, 1972, pp. 427-431. Dzhurova, A. "Ukrasata na rukopisnata kniga kato problem na analitichnifa opis i na kratkifa katalog.” Des cription et catalogage des manuscrits medievaux. Sofia: CIBAL, 1984, pp. 25-34. (In series Balcanica III, Etudes et Documents) . Dzhurova, A., Stanchev, K. and fapundzhich, M., Opis na slavlanskite rukopisi vuv vatikanskata biblioteka. Sofia: Sviat, 1985. Eineder, G. The Ancient Papermills of the Former Austro- Hungarian Empire and their Watermarks. Hilversum, 1960. Geraklitov, A. A. Filigrani XVII veka na bumage rukopis- nykh i pechatnylFh dokumentov russkogo proiz0iozhde- nila. Moscow, 1963. Gorskii, A. and Nevostruev, K. Opisanie slavianskifrh" ru- kopisei Moskovskoi sinodal’noi biblioteki. Vol. I- III. Moscow, 1855-1869. Reprinted in Monumenta Lin guae Slavicae Dialecti Veteris. Fontes et Disserta- tiones. Weisbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1964. Gosudarstvennyi Ordena Lenina Istoricheskii Muzei. Opisa nie rukopisei Sinodal’nogo Sobranifa (ne voshedshiQi v opisanie A. V. Gorskogo i K. I. Nevostrueva. Vol. II (Nos. 820-1051). Moscow, 1973. 171 Granstrem, E. E. Opisanie russkikh i slavfanskiJeh perga- mennytth rukopisei: rukopisi russkie, bolgarskie, moldovlafchi iskie, serbskie Gosudars tvennoi publich- noi biblioteki in. M. E. Saltykova-Shchedrina. Le ningrad, 1953. Grozdanovic-Paji6, M. "Vodeni znak tri polumeseca." Bi- bliotekar 20 (Belgrade, 1968), pp. 527-550. Heawood, E. Watermarks, mainly of the 17th and 18th cen turies. Hilversum, Holland: The Paper Publications Society, 1957. (In series Monumenta Chartae Papyra- ceae Historiam Illustrantia I). Ilchev, P. "Glagoli£ha." Kirilo-Metodievska enfsiklope- difa. A-Z. Sofia: BAN, 1985, pp. 491-509. Institut issledovanifii i istorii tekstov bibliografii, so- veshchanifh, podgotovi tel ’ nye raboty. Instrukfsifa po sastavlenifu opisanilh rukopisi. National ’ nyi tsentr nauchnyJTJi issledovanii, 1977. Ivanov, I. Bulgarski starini iz Makedoniia. Sofia: Dur- zhavna pechatnifsa, 1931. Facsimile edition. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1970. (In series Istorichesko na- sledstvo. ) Ivanova, K. Bulgarski, srubski i moldo-vlakhiiski kirilski rukopisi v sbirkata na M. P. Pogodin. Sofia: BAN, 1981. ' "Pravopis, proizlThod i tekstova redak£siifa na slavianskite rukopisi." Description et catalogage des manuscrits mediSvaux. Sofia: CIBAL, 1984, pp. 41- 47. (In series Balcanica III, Etudes et Documents). Ivanova-Konstantinova, K. "NiHkoi momenti na bulgaro- vizantiiskite literaturni vriizki prez XIV v. (Isi- Jchazmut i negovoto pronikvane v Bulgarifa)." Staro- bulgarska literatura I (Sofia, 1971), pp. 209-242. Jagid, I. V. "Glagolichesko pis’mo." Enfsiklopedifh sla- vfhnskoi fililogii. 3rd ed. St. Petersburg, 1911). ______. Marinskoe chetveroevangelie s primechani fami i pri lozheniTami. Pamfatnik glagolicheskoi pis’men- nosti. St. Petersburg, 1883. . Psalterium Bononiense. Vindobonae, Berolini, Petropoli, 1907. 172 ______. Quattor evangeliorurn Codex glagoliticus olim Zographensis nunc Petropolitanus. Berolini, 1879. Karskii, E. F. Slavianskafa kirillovskafb paleografifa. Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1928. Reprinted Moscow, 1979. Kodov, l(h. Opi s na slavianski te rukopisi v bibliotekata na Bulgarskata akademiUk na naukite. Sofia: BAN, 1969. Kodov, Kh. and Raikov, B. "Prinfsipi i metodi na opisvane na slavflknskite rukopisi s ogled na sdstavfane kata- log na bulgarskite rukopisi ot X do XVII vek." Iz- vestifb na Narodnata Biblioteka "Kiril i Metodii" 14 (1976), pp. 55-82. Kodov, fli., Raikov, B. and Kozhuharov, St. Opis na sla- vfanskite rukopisi v bibliotekakta na Zografskifa manastir v Sveta gora I. Sofia: Svfskt, 1985. Knfazevskafl, 0. A. "K istorii russkogo fazyka v severo- vostochnoi Rusi v seredine XIV v. (Paleografichesko i foneticheskoe opisanie rukopisi Moskovskogo evange- lifa 1358 g.)." Trudy Instituta fazykoznaniia AN SSSR. Vol. 8, pp. 107-177. \ Kuev, K. Azbuchnata molitva v slavfhnskite literaturi. Sofia: BAN, 1974. ______. Sudbata na starobulgarskata rukopisna kniga prez vekovete. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1986. Labarre, E. J. A Dictionary of Paper and Paper-Making Terms. Amsterdam: N. V. Swets & Zeitlinger, 1937. Laucevicius, E. Popierius Lietuvoje XV-XVIII a. Atlasas. Vilnius, 1967. Lavrov, P. A. Paleograficheskoe obozrenie kirilskogo pis’- ma. Petersburg, 1915. Leonid (otets), "Slavlfano-serbski knigolfhranilishcha na sv. Afonskoi gore." Chtenifel Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk 1. St. Petersburg, 1875. Lihachev, D. S. Golemiiat svfat na ruskata literatura. Issledovanifa i statii. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1976. ______. Tekstologifh: na materiale russkoi literature X-XVII vv. Moscow-Leningrad, 1962. 173 LiiThachev, N. P. Bumaga i drevneishie bumazhnye mel’niCsy v Moskovskom gosudarstve. St. Petersburg, 1891. ______. Paleograficheskoe znachenie bumazhnylfh vodfanyfth znakov. Vol. I-III. St. Petersburg, 1891. Matejic, M. Hilandar Slavic Codices. Columbus: Depart ment of Slavic Languages and Literatures, The Ohio State University, 1976. ______. The Holy Mount and Hilandar Monastery. Colum bus, Ohio: The Hilandar Research Project, The Ohio State University, 1983. Matejic, M. and Bogdanovic, D. Slavic Codices of the Great Lavra Monastery. A Description. Sofia: CIBAL, in publication and expected 1987. Matejic, P. Bulgarskiiat ichimnopisefs Efrem ot XIV vek: delo i znachenie. Sofia: BAN, 1982. ______. "Neizvesten bulgarski sbornik ot krafa na XIV vek." Ezik i literatura (1976), pp. 56-58. ______. Unpublished inventory of the Hilandar Slavic Manuscript Collection. ______. Watermarks of the Hilandar Slavic Codices. A Descriptive Catalog. Sofia: Centre International d*Information sur les Sources de l'Histoire Balka- nique et Mediterrane6nne /CIBAL/, 1981. Meiendorf, I. F. "0 vizantiiskom isilthazme i ego roli v kul’turnom i istoricheskom razvitii Vostochnoi Evro- py v XIV v." Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 29 (1974), pp. 291-305. Milich, P. Beyond Mimesis: A Study in Byzantine-Serbian Acculturation in the Light of Two Hilandar Chyrso- bulls. M.A. Thesis, Department of History, The Ohio State University. Columbus, Ohio, 1987. Mosin, V. Anchor Watermarks. Amsterdam, 1973. ______(firilski rukopisi Jugoslavenske akademije. Opis. Vol. I. Zagreb, 1955. ______. Paleografski album na juznoslovenskoto kirilsko pismo. Skoplje, 1966. ______. Slovenski rakopisi vo Makedonija. Vol. I-II. Skoplje, 1971. 174 Mosin, V. and Grozdanovic-Pajic, M. Agneau pascal. Bel grade, 1967. Mosin, V. and Pajic-Grozdanovic, M. "Vodeni znak 'kruna sa svezdom i polumesecom’." Bibliotekar 15 (Bel grade, 1963), pp. 11-20. Mosin, V. and Purkovic, M. Hilandarski igumani srednJeg veka. Skoplje, 1940. Mosin, V. and Traljic, S. Vodeni znakovi XIII i XIV vijeka. Zagreb, 1957. Nedeljkovic, 0. "Problem strukturnih redakcija starosla- venskog prijevoda Apostola." Slovo 22 (1972), pp. 27-40. Nikolaev, V. Watermarks of the Mediaeval Ottoman documents in Bulgarian Libraries I. Sofia, 1954. Pere(s, A. N. "Rukopisi biblioteki Moskovskogo universi- teta, samarski JcK bibliotek i muzeia i minskilfh so- branie." Opisanifa rukopisnyJrh sobranii. 3rd ed. Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1934. Petkovic, S. Opis rukopisa manastira Krusedola. Sremski Karlovci, 1914. Popov, G. Triodni proizvedenifa na Konstantin Preslavski. Sofia: BAN, 1985. (In series Kirilo-Metodievski studii. kn. 2). Proltliorov, G. M. "IsilThazm i obshchestvennafa mysl* v Vostochnoi Evrope v XIV v.," Trudy Otdela drevnerus- skoi literature 23 (1968), pp. 86-108. Radchenko, K. F. Religioznoe i literaturnoe dvizhenie v Bolgarii v epoJchu pered turefskim zavoevaniem. Kiev, 1898. Sava Chilandarac. "Rukopisy a starotisky Chilandarski." Vestnik Kralovske ceskS spolecnosti nAuk. Trida filosofska-historicka 1896. r. 6 (Praha, 1897), pp. 1-98. ______. Unpublished manuscript (1908). See Bogdanovic, Katalog.... p. 15. Shchepkin, V. N. y Uchebnik Russkoi paleografii. Moscow: Obshchestvo Istorii i Drevnostei RossiiskifTh pri Moskovskom Universitete, 1918. 175 Slaveva, L. "Za staroslovenskiot triod." Slovo 22 (1972), pp. 93-116. Sobolevskii, A. I. Slavf&no-russka/a paleografiia. St. Petersburg, 1901. Reprinted 1908. Speranskii, M. N. Iz istorii russko-slavi&nskikh litera- turny/rh svihzei. Moscow, 1960. Sreznevskii, I. I. Drevnie pamiatniki russkago pis’ma i fhzyka X-XIV vekov, obschee povremennoe obozrenie. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 1882. ______. "Drevnee slavfhnskie pamfhtnikii fusovogo pis’- ia." Sbornik statei chitannyich v otdelenii russkago lhzyka i slovesnosti Impera torskoi akademii Nauk. Vol. 3. St. Petersburg, 1868. ______. "Svedeniiai i zametki o maloizvestnyith i neiz- vestnykh pamisitnikaJtii." Sbornik Otdelenii russkago Thzyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk. St. Petersburg, 1875, 1877). Vol. 5, pp. 1-392. vol. 15, pp. 393-579. Stevenson, A. "Introduction." In Briquet, Ch. Les Fili- granes. Vol. I. Amsterdam, 1968, pp.*15-*36. Stojanovic, Lj. Katalog Narodne biblioteke u Beogradu. Rukopisi i stare stampane knjige. Vol. 4. Belgrade, 1903. ______. Katalog rukopisa i starib stampanih kniga. Zbirka Srpske kraljevske akadmije. Belgrade, 1901. ______. Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi. Vol. I-IV. Belgrade, 1902-1926. Syrku, P. A. K istorii ispravlenifa knig v Bolgarii v XIV veke I. St. Petersburg, 1899. Tachiaos, A. E. "Le monachisme serbe de Saint Sava et la tradition hesychaste athonite." Hilandarski zbornik I (Belgrade, 1966), pp. 83-89. Tikhomirov, N. B. et. al. Muzeinoe sobranie rukopisei (Go- sudarstvennoi biblioteki im. V. I. Lenina). Moscow, 1961. Trifunovic, Dj. Srpski srednjovekovni spisi o knezu Laza- ru u kosovskom boju. Krusevac, 1968. 176 Tromonin’s Watermark Album. A Facsimile of the Moscow 1844 Edition. Hilversum, Holland: The Paper Publi cations Society, 1965. (In series Monuments Chartae Papyraceae Historiam Illustrantia XI). Tsonev, B. Opis na rukopisite i staropechatnite knigi na Narodnata biblioteka v SofifiH. Sofia: Durzhavna pechatni^sa, 1910. Undol’skii, V. M. Unpublished manuscript. Opyt slavfano- russkoi paleografii H i nauki opredelf&t ’ vremfh na- pisanifh rukopisei, pravil’no i beglo chi tat* onye. Quoted in Zhukovskafh, L. Razvitie slavfano-russkoi paleografii (v dorevolfhtsionnoi Rossii i v SSSR). Moscow: Institut russkogo l&zyka, Akademila Nauk SSSR, 1963, p. 42 Velcheva, B. "Uvod.” Dobromirovo evangelie, bulgarski pa- metnik ot nachaloto na XII vek. Sofia: BAN, 1975, pp. 5-33. Velkov, A. and Andreev, S. Vodni zna££i v osmano-turskite dokumenti. Tri luni. Vol. I. Sofia: Narodna bi blioteka "Kiril i Metodii", 1983. Viktorov, A. Sobranie rukopisei P. I. Sevast ’ fanova. Mos cow, 1881. Vostokov, A. lOi. Opisanie russkifii i slovenskifch rukopisei Rumfanfsovskogo Muzeuma. St. Petersburg, 1842. Zhukovskaya, L. P. "Paleografiia." Paleograficheskii i lingvisticheskii analiz novgorodskilth beres tfhnylfh gramot. Moscow, 1955. ______. Razvitie slavfano-russkoi paleografii (v dore vol futsionnoi Rossii i v SSSR). Moscow: Institut russkogo fazyka, Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1963. Zonghi, A. Watermarks in Paper Their Origin and Impor tance. Hilversum, Holland: The Paper Publications Society, 1953. (In series, Monumenta Chartae Papy- raciae Historiam Illustrantia. Vol. III. Zonghi’s Watermarks). APPENDICES 177 APPENDIX A FOURTEENTH-CENTURY MANUSCRIPTS IN THE LIBRARY OF HILANDAR MONASTERY 178 179 FOURTEENTH-CENTURY MANUSCRIPTS IN THE LIBRARY OF HILANDAR MONASTERY* DATED - 47 (1312/1316), 1 (1316), 18 (1322), (1336), 9 (1337), 385 (1344), 15 (1348), 470 (1355), 10 (1356), 46 (1365) FIRST QUARTER - 384, 453, 475, 644, 757/11 SECOND QUARTER - 31, 142, 146, 147, 148, 226, 315, 473, 610, 758/X FIRST HALF - 3/II, 12 MIDDLE - 3/1, 14, 17, 20, 53, 79, 126, 141, 160, 165, 174, 259, 265, 609, 758/VI, 759/III THIRD QUARTER - 11, 13, 21, 48, 65, 78, 80, 84, 127, 128, 143, 144, 146, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 256, 257, 258, 381, 390, 393, 395, 397, 404, 421, 422, 455, 459, 471, 472, 646, 647, 739/1, 739/III, 758/V, 758/VII, 758/IX, 759/1V, 759/VII, 760/IV, 760/IX, 760/X LAST THIRD - 254 FOURTH QUARTER - 19, 54, 55, 60, 70, 72, 73, 108, 142, 145, 179, 255, 264, 270, 274, 275, 299, 316, 342, 343, 375, 388, 389, 391, 392, 396, 398, 399, 418, 419, 420, 454, 456, 457, 462, 474, 476, 615, 618, 640, 645, 652, 739/V, 758/11, 758/1V, 758/VIII, 759/V, 759/IX, 759/X, 760/1, 760/11, 760/III, 760/V, 761/VI SECOND HALF - 458, 612, 739/IV XIV century - 569, 647a, 758/III *The list is arranged by order of dating priority and precedence. The information is based on Bogdanovic, Kata log. ... M. Matejic, Hilandar Slavic Codices.... and P. Mate jic, Watermarks... This list does not include Hilandar manuscripts #297 and #298, which were removed from Hilandar in 1897 but whose numbers are still reserved. The list also does not include manuscript portions bound with printed books. * APPENDIX B FOURTEENTH-CENTURY PAPER MANUSCRIPTS IN THE LIBRARY OF HILANDAR MONASTERY INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY 180 181 FOURTEENTH-CENTURY PAPER MANUSCRIPTS IN THE LIBRARY OF HILANDAR. MONASTERY* INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY DATED - 470 (1355) FIRST QUARTER - 453 (in part, parchment), 475, 644 SECOND QUARTER - 142, 146, 147, 148, 226, 315, 473, 610, 758/X MIDDLE - 20, 79, 126, 141, 259, 265, 609 (in part, parchment), 758/VI, 759/III THIRD QUARTER - 21, 48, 65, 80, 84, 127, 128, 143, 144, 146, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 256, 257, 258, 381, 390, 393, 395, 397,404 (in part, parchment), 421, 422, 455, 459, 471, 472, 646, 647, 739/III, 758/V, 758/VII, 758/IX, 759/IV, 759/VII, 760/IV, 760/IX, 760/X LAST THIRD - 254 FOURTH QUARTER - 19, 54, 55, 60, 70 (one parchment leaf), 72, 73 (one parchment leaf), 108, 142, 145, 179, 255, 264, 270, 274, 275, 299, 316, 342, 343, 375, 388, 389, 391, 392, 396, 398, 399, 418, 419, 420, 454, 456, 457, 462, 474, 476, 615, 618, 640, 645, 652, 739/V, 758/11, 758/IV, 758/VIII, 759/V, 759/IX, 759/X, 760/1, 760/11, 760/1II, 760/V, 761/VI SECOND HALF - 458, 612, 739/IV XIV century - 569, 758/III *The list is arranged by order of dating priority and precedence. The information is based on Bogdanovid, Kata log. ... M. Matejic, Hilandar Slavic Codices.... and P. Mate jic, Watermarks... This list does not include Hilandar manuscripts #297, which was removed from Hilandar in 1897 but whose numbers are still reserved. The list also does not include manuscript portions bound with printed books. The list, however, does include Hilandar manuscript #298, which was also removed from Hilandar in 1897, but which is now found in Yugoslavia. Copies of watermarks of this ma nuscript were provided through the courtesy of D. Bogdanovid. APPENDIX C PLATES HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT FRAGMENTS #759/VII AND #739/111 (WHICH BELONG TO HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #646) AND SAMPLE PAGE FROM HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #646 182 PLATE I HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT FRAGMENT A759/VII (Folio lr) *J**ft#*? t ftj 6*m£ i rti a > £ t r f t t n •' ^ i r°-'5',^.e W.TjJ^K’H T C At^lAA AA&, ^ ^ - 4 k ^ k ‘a ‘a ,i t ta * ra t n c i a o ^ . ^ «'fcui(i : t f i t * ip oy U b ic p b a £ rt H A A ^ a * C K£& n KlT -- r *4T t7vf***Krt''fitntty e'rktrtttn^ KotH'i ttsl n °dtk ro fK c n € ^ P a3s YA a * M A r r u 0 im (x 0/S LJJ H Ut T 0 r 0 fi. »w 11 (Ai'An ti w {4 1< 0 K H ItO/KIM'fr T H^TQA U4, € A H 1C 0 T E UI f l7l A& KftV _. tAO^AZ^4rpAAvATH/UtOAv.ACU« • - - nprtTAH3S.3 n LUHAAtAvfi't.nAlltt.n6H26AttVK; .,. IlArt^WHTAKOfi^WH, ^KO/M W£MYAHrt ? aaanTLT&o pH'TK, tWiirio/tvHH^^rut’rp't'-. ,5; ~ . TttjWH. H cu* ttttiAH U l A ^ j s - ; J * k It**yCO ';„ -l ui'AAuit to Artie oy- e a k k o 3 s T « y* w c m ra t : a t h ;■ - &l*.ijibt.Ttta, siftr\Y t w bcu no r& y£ii£tj> --X-* miHOro jR( I T t^ - iK t tn A tit A WO A*fr UiCCA, :k ^i'H r*:» ,. t\l U AJIA> OAClt lip * V 1 nlA llnni\ "* j[ •■J'.’ni\tNfHtnM'TA6NA0* .CtrOKfljrt^HiMtnfl* -t? .• c - r o ^ki^rte •M-r i “V ”i ■■m i .. > rftftoe HATOtfOra • * • PLATE II HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT FRAGMENT #759/VII (Folio lv) 1 H l'e rv j> K € M b H pIB tt61 ThUlA f 1 * * IJJ11 n^A'ipi | rtOpK^'b'fktlCOl^SHTIl MAAirttMkA/flS'YCn.AbO t A'b tu t ^ *t Ac • h m a t & rtn K H M M orbi w u i T ^ r nprt-6MT>0y^( MrtUb’TorflS'llTH, MnAtTAfiK ' Trt.tAvUjntro&^ HlTHttttifc/tvnp^AAA^poCT^.- rtT'fc’^boy ff6(uioAS'AAA«riiaft^Artfi}F-AH\6rt4k . ro, apoTr/tnprteAAAtjrt/^cutttro- m hcah^ ,” n^oY^oto^riirtj *-*J c T r o c u ujAno heA'fr rvrtoffki.;: 6 M o y n p ’frnecH T H cC /u’frcTAcvfc iaoi n z ^ t AM^jf /\AOAorto(rt^rtAOYCfpo{rAKinAiX- ti^aiM AAOayc H^OOyKA^AflOArO AArfr(T A , r\ 0 A t A ^ i nrut£tzA'frnotT»i,r&op'fc,uit ■ ' "j noartoAjioYaoAoyAnHtoapHuj t^uio^, h .; up^aiAo/utoyrnort, Mko2K{ ruL^hpAAvHS^i ^IjJOAJWyAA'tt'TO • S’rfr liitffOtoMUiLnOtAt".! ^rti if . AA* Y TpoyA HMAvttrt;K7Rf* ^ * * K2;«(AA0 riif 6 2 ^ THTIirifllCOA- Hno^fcfiEArtKilttAAbKAXAl ' ■ * ItlAVE *A6 r L, t flAA UJ { • fA K Q AM £ f ll^b/Kt ff b : 'S l ' rfl^oT/^rtnH(JoYhtOAA»£uj^rAfeA'tru | '^ffATlAArtt'K^HAOn^bpAgh^ np'fc&Ap'frfcTb ^ jfeA»ffAl*£«0- mcAKO, A^CKOtf't no A'tAni. ...3 H g '' «f — > « ■—* X •« ^T ^lttK iltttb UJI^b nAUJblUJArHEibKtArtnp* £ riilAA/tv AC U)*ff hi *tf A H), K i b i t f f 't AAOAAvt/k .v- Kfiffpv, &A^rtboyffOTtnhi«btt,tKAKoroMk 6AtmA(b*6frt'bfi’ii- fttt/j'frtktfi'ticciro ^ ' C^trinoA^nnAroroM^s’oyiKA'/KiyA, Ktl -f| nba>fi’Art,rA/tvL^JAttrA/tvL|idl* itoArine• 185 PLATE III HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT FRAGMENT #739/111 (Folio lr) ? 3 s/ar t • €^K< dMrtesl'rA t 1C', kCi5tl,Y ^ n Av .-K J ZN i £ & A r n • *r w v i o y .fd oycil2;. S^f^I K £ ben W N/l AsrrJ»'TAAfrM|i|A,4Ai(nk.ef5,k-nM £?' 3K4tiro£Acoii£ptiuin M < c k a x r»• At* ri.fl()IefTf f T ttl i V f *“ w ~' >**i-a'kpgp&in M u s 4 aujif> fifA 6 C f jty (7l ii & j X ^ M A ft & 3 m s PLATE IV HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT FRAGMENT #739/111 (Folio lv) • AA o y - B o e & o A £ ko {n t /ko r n i art7f H 1 h ri2, m 14 •' KAA'Cft CirriH’rhAAAnor^ti'rfio^MUj^';: (UlVfTLU* MMO rAv^KH • nACfl*A0MluJ6UAM4>SBT£> ^<^Tf m a faoa6 (nm haa i nAfTajj 6 AW(ryl/T : lA |ift hi n a h? W TAs ui i m 4 r^r aa a & t f 4 m lh fiqji'i'; - r - -vri tffir f t U ,<* e < h fTA a a 4 K yfirA ; <: a • t k * >.• A ' . n/ffT4ipriA no-Tr^kt&i« r ^ ^ /I r h -/j »tr< (TA ^H • g /Kft A j [ l v4y?0 ,V . • noKJMfe^rtlK. : fkr £D YHAjtitofll'A ^/fv.yj>r V * . ‘ ( g g p U l 4 f \ A T p f M i‘f A M TAs/j o /■ p y f o aj'AA nt h i A rn isfJl m t PLATE V HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #646 (Folio 2 r ) giifvittaA aKb £ ttiH,^Khpini /vi'iiit 2T- (CO Att ICQ Akflo A S All 1t 'TC'f rtbl l^zTAt^AAHUVkT':, flKOAhllCWTTb lilt TblM nflS#AAfcr'btUlA\rtO ' " ' *rt««tm^U0A . 6i»6^ctfiAioynpA6Atrti’tmnTH?rtAA*Lu^ l'06t'fc, noXW^H6UJf(/hlCOyaftOAL(KMW6 • KOBflw&AtnttAro tift’woirofjioa vcc^ • it* x X * ru i*r a p ^ n lu. h oa t t a 0 r ^ r i'« &iz^t /5,our*.- u^i'HAnttiCAMico/TtfC iurtrtfcrt PLATES HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT FRAGMENT #759/X, WHICH BELONGS TO HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #396 (BETWEEN FOLIA 303v-304r) 188 189 PLATE VI HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #396 (Folio 303v) T ?Wft?3f .-Tjrzr ~AX^'ih • ton** rttt\AAntA(A\rkit Ftrkimt *n«t*.Kn»4^fcinHAftMgn rHvrr^knn^tft^BHtmntn/1 HHlUf faifblflj A • ct AH f jJ (tayx ■kjAAAtt-} j}kuJii.#.( siLr{A(XlbBACHAK . fcfclUl MH«jKhtTTS« U^Bkl r!u< . . H/V<6 rilK /t • « m Tni.\ * 4 4 n rYf MMKkTtre^t KbAA^HHli Llif .tv tn ff Mil , U | J l j i f i k M t m j t a h , nra^j.\B M H t r t tifi BbCt,lbtrrrtbiH^AAAk • H r r p H ^ H H A A T i rifc ri.* ,HSkM/iTrjit . Tlf «(H i^r* {•«irn*Ai<« hi nffjipirniiA A •; ijiyKtu M 4Atain/tt i AAiy HE-^iuify tf-ak* mc* a x 1»f*i*<.ltV{»yiuf»itAAb { ^ t M b . ^ x r r b a b(n • • . % ®**Vfix* $ *=•< t^T ft ft :- PLATE VII HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT FRAGMENT #759/X (Folio lr) t ' W A ; - ' • "* •'t i 1. ■ H««»U K lyHAAh KtAHtAtlllltlAAh AA t y ^ f M k • *** cAm» /w»ju**yfiA uyAiA hAH!(;i nAcmaa/ucV* h rX IY 1yi H*XIV4*£,UA~*- Q rP A I t Ck B (rtMb Jff^M • r T ^ H * ^ ^ * k H H > * y n^rtrtttrf n^«T*Trf riHfAriiA r*rt LfJAr*, n i • iiAf ix_ t'^kiYA^t Mil S-LI, rr r r ^ x « ^ fc Mf A^« ctr'f M Ck ^ i ^ s ? ... f JlHn«(MAfcci.t*,f («/V**y (k rlkrj'fujf HArt*>*p(Vf A« r * A A fy^iLji s HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT FRAGMENT #759/X (Folio lv) ■ w ' nr-t«H K €M-1 * r *>. (nnyHAAk. Mn4 K 'A ^ « .fiA^ rAAf ftAnV.I k'* r« s£ « n » 8«1M h AAh 6 lu | (oG I.jlk K < rtl ( • H*\r bA if A ,B b ^ f i p n ’ iif f t k r ^ " r*» -ntr Rb &£rr£'AAhCAjr|)T£(ti’M(ffifc<.^ k'rh "r'& ^Hnfca*i«(Tr«Tr,Hci t'.^irrHiiif tA « Y ^ r < . i : “ Atttn Tit /v«.>Y^.trLi*.ujjY M B f/v\y, mrfcl • M ,T» uuCkiIahC^ ckm^*fj(7h *' o n A ^ r i y * Jin#Mfcii.u /a »-a . /v*«j£-rriT# t ^ S M H itr BHfj-rbiftnn*r» t U M ftt r\n n* nVnjantntL^H — • MfT^"£"irnr4s Afcf r « cw o Ama^A Kfc M*y tTr^'T»xjHniEtATt'• htta«« ly^^st . a n r ^ ^ A MAuJfctTTTHrf 7 n« Sf/vTfifc /Wfc rtf T*-E,fc|TTTMSlii^j4 JTA M jhS m BA CkirrB.i^HnrM • HnafH^k^^k^rtayrrrH ^wAufifMHHThfirBa - iritntBtXT V ivr,WM n r«&fc«yf’A4xixfrtH«<«, rr^Tfrr^A^t «if . jkntRWHa kjfcfMAM k • htif«AJji»«rA4Bkru^i • -»-«^A*ifeth « i .H n Tff T7|tfc m h tm l u h r ^ t r sn n tH cjt(ktr’EAflAfMitj Mr^HH»ynr«(jh :?:. c \sufe|sSf«M-#lfrrAM«AjrE*|Jrt'*'r>>f* c'fcis4nTH : . ". . v^rTTiafliLCfo^raflrifciH jTp4<(«Hi ** JHAlCIHAjHCf PLATE IX HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #396 (Folio 304r) Kftf~»ytAAtt EkHH^f HkrfA • Art^fAU jr .r .tkS^AHttSkl^KHH. Ai^Srf l.<4f EpAi^trrt^'rt'ffcAA^aTfc mj-AU«4 a^rim «ynn« MrT^f^b i ITT B 0 p H • A iffij'lH S M Ml (< ^fnmd-mir* h n*y« mf ipf i(Cki H 17prt(^s A S k AAritf."Kk C ITT £ 4 if e M t T { At* i< ■ H O J t r v n EkCt(T4t|,nnT^An»'*«v'. n*HATnp4^H# 54m M • £ ( »y E-u/fHijf ITki . H rifljlM i u K ^ U t ripXAfc (TTH Hfijt A b t tJ^E H UMH , rTWf rtM JUfiffc nHMiy' v Art 1|J» • (( rj>A^ k « . U m f^faXV" KHnk rb lm M in AAArTTffAAAH (S FOURTEENTH-CENTURY HILANDAR MONASTERY SLAVIC MANUSCRIPTS ON PARCHMENT ATTRIBUTED BY LUCIJA CERNIC 193 194 FOURTEENTH-CENTURY HILANDAR MONASTERY SLAVIC MANUSCRIPTS ON PARCHMENT ATTRIBUTED BY LUCIJA CERNIC HILANDAR 3/1 (383) SCROLL: PRAYERS and RITES (concerning water) Middle of the XIV Century Scribe - monk Roman /I/, in Hilandar - attribution of L. Cernic Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Parchment 7 folia HILANDAR #13 (13) TETRAEVANGEL ION THE FOUR GOSPELS Commissioned by PATRIARCH SAVA (1354/1375) (Scribe - monk Feoktist, probably in Hilandar - attribution of L. Cernic) Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Parchment 330 folia APPENDIX F FOURTEENTH-CENTURY HILANDAR MONASTERY SLAVIC MANUSCRIPTS ON PAPER ATTRIBUTED BY LUCIJA CERNIC AND/OR DIMITRIJE BOGDANOVIC 195 196 FOURTEENTH-CENTURY HILANDAR MONASTERY SLAVIC MANUSCRIPTS ON PAPER ATTRIBUTED BY LUCIJA CERNIC AND/OR DIMITRIJE BOGDANOVIC HILANDAR #127 (129) OCTOECHOS OCTOECHOS (Tones 5-8) Third Quarter of the XIV Century One of three scribes - monk Iov /folia 127 to end/ - attribution of L. Cernic Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 1+244 folia HILANDAR #128 (130) OCTOECHOS OCTOECHOS (Tones 1-4) Third Quarter of the XIV Century Primary scribe also copied part of Hilandar #127 - attribution by D. Bogdanovic Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 248 folia HILANDAR #143 (147) MENA ION MENAION for DECEMBER Third Quarter of the XIV Century One of three scribes - monk Iov /folia 1-12/ - attribution of L. Cernid. Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 1+203 folia HILANDAR #388 (232) COLLECTION of HOMILIES (type "ZLATOUST") Last Quarter of the XIV Century Scribe - monk Iov, in Hilandar - attribution of L. Cerni6 Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 251 folia 197 HILANDAR #389 (233) COLLECTION of HOMILIES (type "ZLATOUST”) Last Quarter of the XIV Century Formerly part of previous manuscript, by same scribe - attribution of D. Bogdanovid Scribe, monk Iov - attribution of L. Cernid Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 252-509 folia HILANDAR #473 (457) PANEGYRIKOS PANEGYRIC COLLECTION (Selections) for SEPTEMBER-MARCH Second Quarter of the XIV Century Scribe of first portion, monk Roman /II/ - attribution of L. Cernic Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 335 folia HILANDAR #474 (458) HYSECHAST/ANTI-LATIN COLLECTION Last Quarter of the XIV Century Primary scribe, monk Iov - attribution of L. Cernic Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 11+426 folia HILANDAR #475 (459) HYSECHAST COLLECTION ca. 1320/1330 and Last Quarter of the XIV Century (Manuscript is in 2 parts) One of the scribes of #158, #453, #644 - attribution of L. Cernid Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 222+205 folia 198 HILANDAR #477 (461) ASCETIC/HYSECHAST MISCELLANY ca. 1400 (Scribe - Danilats - attribution of L. Cernid) Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 1+303 folia HILANDAR #644 CHTI-MINEJ LIVES OF SAINTS ca. 1320/30 One of the scribes of #158, #453 and #475 - attribution of L. Cernic Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 120 folia APPENDIX G FOURTEENTH-CENTURY HILANDAR MONASTERY SLAVIC MANUSCRIPTS HOUSED IN HILANDAR MONASTERY THAT ARE PRODUCTS KNOWN OR ATTRIBUTED TO THE LOCAL HILANDAR SCRIPTORIUM 199 200 FOURTEENTH-CENTURY HILANDAR MONASTERY SLAVIC MANUSCRIPTS HOUSED IN HILANDAR MONASTERY THAT ARE PRODUCTS KNOWN OR ATTRIBUTED TO THE LOCAL HILANDAR SCRIPTORIUM PARCHMENT MANUSCRIPTS HILANDAR 3/1 (383) SCROLL: PRAYERS and RITES (concerning water) Middle of the XIV Century Scribe - monk Roman /I/, in Hilandar - attribution of L. Cerni6 Ch. Si. Serbian/Rashka (u) Parchment 7 folia HILANDAR #9 (9) EVANGELION (APRAKOS) GOSPEL LECTIONARY 1337 (Scribe - monk Roman /I/, in Hilandar) Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Parchment 338 folia HILANDAR #10 (10) TETRAE VANGEL I ON THE FOUR GOSPELS 1356 (Scribe - monk Dionisiie, in Hilandar) Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Parchment 278 folia HILANDAR #13 (13) TETRAE VANGELION THE FOUR GOSPELS commissioned by PATRIARCH SAVA (1354/1375) (Scribe - monk Feoktist, probably in Hilandar - attribution of L. Cernic) Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Parchment 330 folia HIL.HM.SMS.14 (14) E VANGELION (APRAKOS) GOSPEL LECTIONARY donated by VOEVODA NIKOLA STANJEVIC Middle of the XIV Century (Scribe - monk Feoktist, probably in Hilandar) Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Parchment IV+321+III folia HILANDAR #47 (65) PRAXAPOSTOLOS ACTS OF APOSTLES and EPISTLES 1312/1316 (Scribe - heiromonk Ger’vasiie, in Hilandar) Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Parchment 186 folia HILANDAR #126 (127) OCTOECHOS OCTOECHOS (Tones 5-8) Middle of the XIV Century (Scribe - monk Damiian’ /Averkiev’ ipur’g’/, in Hilandar) Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Parchment 1+253 folia 202 HILANDAR #158 (128) OCTOECHOS OCTOECHOS (Tones 1-8,, incomplete) Third Quarter of the XIII Century (Scribe - heiromonk Fe/o/dul) Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Parchment 188 folia Folia 182-188 are paper /bombasine/ datable to the first quarter of the fourteenth century, the scribe being the same as found in Hilandar manuscripts #453, #475 (first section) and #644 - attribution of L. Cernic. HILANDAR #160 (144) MENA ION MENAION for MARCH Middle of the XIV Century (Scribe - monk Roman /I/, in Hilandar) Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Parchment 156 folia HILANDAR #297 (367) LIFE of ST. SAVA 1336 (Scribe - monk Teodul) Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Parchment 214 folia Manuscript no longer in Hilandar, removed from there in 1896. Its present location is unknown, but its number and place have been preserved. 203 PAPER MANUSCRIPTS Group A Manuscripts known to have been produced in Hilandar HILANDAR #48 (66) PRAXAPOSTOLOS ACTS OF APOSTLES and EPISTLES ca. 1360/1370 • • (probable scribe - heiromonk Fimofei, in Hilandar) Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 307 folia t HILANDAR #79 (87) PS ALTER ION PSALTER Middle of the XIV Century (Scribe - monk Roman /II/, in Hilandar) Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 215 folia HILANDAR #84 (95) PSALTERION PSALTER ca. 1370 (Scribe - monk Iov, in Hilandar) Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper I+215+I folia HILANDAR #298 (368) LIVES of SS. SIMEON AND SAVA ca. 1360/70 (Scribe - Marko, probably in Hilandar) Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 326 folia Manuscript removed from Hilandar Monastery in 1897. Its pre sent location is in the National Library of Serbia as #Rs 17. Hilandar continues to reserve a number and place for it. HILANDAR #381 (320) CHRONICLE of GEORGIOS HAMART0L0S Third Quarter of the XIV Century (Scribe - monk Iov, in Hilandar) Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 267 folia HILANDAR #390 (234) COLLECTION of LENTEN HOMILIES (type "ZLATOUST") Third Quarter of the XIV Century (Scribe - monk Damiian’, in Hilandar) Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper I+356+I folia HILANDAR #392 (236) ZLATOUST* POSTNI COLLECTION of LENTEN HOMILIES (type "ZLATOUST") ca. 1385 (Scribe - monk Iov, in Hilandar) Ch. Si. Serbian Rashka (u) Paper 521+1 folia HILANDAR #453 (452) PSALTER with OTHER TEXTS ca. 1320/30 (a scribe - heiromonk /Teo/fil’, probably in Hilandar) Ch. Si. Serbian/Rashka (u) Parchment/Paper 127 folia 205 Group B Manuscripts attributed to scribes of Hilandar Monastery HILANDAR #127 (129) OCTOECHOS OCTOECHOS (Tones 5-8) Third Quarter of the XIV Century One of three scribes - monk Iov /folia 127 to end/ - attribution of L. Cernic Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 1+244 folia HILANDAR #128 (130) OCTOECHOS OCTOECHOS (Tones 1-4) Third Quarter of the XIV Century Primary scribe also copied part of Hilandar #127 - attribution by D. Bogdanovi6 Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 248 folia HILANDAR #143 (147) MENA ION MENAION for DECEMBER Third Quarter of the XIV Century One of three scribes - monk Iov /folia 1-12/ - attribution of L. Cerni6. Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 1+203 folia HILANDAR #388 (232) COLLECTION of HOMILIES (type "ZLATOUST") Last Quarter of the XIV Century Scribe - monk Iov, in Hilandar - attribution of L. Cernic Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 251 folia 206 HILANDAR #389 (233) COLLECTION of HOMILIES (type "ZLATOUST") Last Quarter of the XIV Century Formerly part of previous manuscript, by same scribe - attribution of D. Bogdanovi6 Scribe, monk Iov - attribution of L. Cernic Ch. Si. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 252-509 folia HILANDAR #473 (457) PA NEG YRIKOS PANEGYRIC COLLECTION (Selections) for SEPTEMBER-MARCH Second Quarter of the XIV Century Scribe of first portion, monk Roman /II/ - attribution of L. Cernic Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 335 folia HILANDAR #474 (458) HYSECHAST/ANTI-LATIN COLLECTION Last Quarter of the XIV Century Primary scribe, monk Iov - attribution of L. Cernic Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 11+426 folia HILANDAR #475 (459) HYSECHAST COLLECTION ca. 1320/1330 and Last Quarter of the XIV Century (Manuscript is in 2 parts) One of the scribes of #158, #453, #644 - attribution of L. Cernifi Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 222+205 folia 207 HILANDAR #644 CHTI-MINEJ LIVES OF SAINTS ca. 1320/30 One of the scribes of #158, #453 and #475 - attribution of L. Cernifi Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 120 folia Group C Manuscripts attributed on the basis of watermarks in Group A HILANDAR #19 (18) TETRAE VANGEL ION THE FOUR GOSPELS Last Quarter of the XIV Century Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 309 folia HILANDAR #142 (146) MENA ION MENAION for SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER Fourth Decade and Last Quarter of the XIV Century Ch. SI. Bulgarian (s-u) Paper 1-58+228-249+II folia Ch. Si. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 59-227 folia HILANDAR #146 (150) MENAION MENAION for MARCH-JUNE Fourth Decade and Third Quarter of the XIV Century Ch. Si. Bulgarian (s-u) Paper 76-353 folia Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 1-75/354+1 folia 208 HILANDAR #148 (152) MENAION MENAION for SEPTEMBER Middle of the XIV Century (Scribe - Io/an?/) Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper I+222+I folia HILANDAR #254 (185) TRIODION and MENAION TRIODION and FESTAL MENAION (February-August) Last Third of the XIV Century Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 329 folia (Attributed to Paper of Hilandar Monastery) HILANDAR #476 (460) HYSECHAST COLLECTION Last Quarter of the XIV Century (Scribe of first part - Priest Nil’, in "Rus..."?) Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (mixed) Paper 401+1 folia 209 Group D Manuscripts attributed on the basis of watermarks in Group B HILANDAR #226 (318) LIFE of ST. SAVA THE ENLIGHTENED Second Quarter of the XIV Century Ch. SI. Bulgarian/Turnovo (s-u) Paper 173 folia HILANDAR #257 (188) PENTEKOSTARION PENTECOSTARION Third Quarter of the XIV Century Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 334+1 folia HILANDAR #454 (462) IPOMNISIS PROS TIN EAUTOU PSIXIN "ADMONITIONS TO ONE’S OWN SOUL" by PETER OF DAMASCUS Last Quarter of the XIV Century Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (s-u) Paper 322 folia HILANDAR #610 MENAION MENAION for NOVEMBER Fourth Decade of the XIV Century Second Quarter of the XVII Century (2 manuscripts bound together) Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 1-122 folia Ch. SI. Serbian/Resava (s-u) Paper 123-175 folia 210 Group E Manuscripts attributed on the basis of watermarks in Groups C and D HILANDAR #55 (21) TETRAE VANGELION THE FOUR GOSPELS ca. 1380/90 Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper I+314+I folia HILANDAR #145 MENAION MENAION for MARCH-MAY Fourth Decade of the XIV Century Same scribe as Hilandar #147 - attribution of L. Cernic Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 262 f ol ia HILANDAR #147 (151) MENAION MENAION for JUNE-JULY Fourth Decade of the XIV Century Same scribe as Hilandar #145 - attribution of L. Cernic Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 1+239 f ol ia HILANDAR #760/1 FRAGMENT: COLLECTION (Patristic?) Last Quarter of the XIV Century Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (s-u) Paper 4 folia 211 Group F Manuscripts attributed on the basis of watermarks in Group E HILANDAR #256 (187) TRIODION LENTEN TRIODION Third Quarter of the XIV Century Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 295 folia HILANDAR #422 (317) SVETY VARLAAM" STORY/LIFE OF BARLAAM and JOSAPHAT Third Quarter of the XIV Century Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper I+305+I folia s Group G Manuscripts attributed on the basis of watermarks in Group F HILANDAR #180 (247) "LADDER TO PARADISE" of ST. JOHN CLIMACUS (incomplete) ca. 1370/80 Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 256 folia HILANDAR #760/V PATERIKON FRAGMENT: PATRISTIC COLLECTION Last Quarter of the XIV Century Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (s-u) Paper 12 folia 212 Manuscripts attributed on the basis of watermarks in Group X (Hilandar Monastery Slavic Manuscripts located outside Hilandar Monastery) HILANDAR #477 (481) ASCETIC/HYSECHAST MISCELLANY ca. 1400 (Scribe - Danilats - attribution of L. CerniJ Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 1+303 folia HILANDAR #618 LEI TO URG IKON and EUCHOLOGION SERVICE and PRAYER BOOK Last Quarter of the XIV Century Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (u) Paper 160+1 folia HILANDAR MANUSCRIPTS FOR WHICH FRAGMENTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED (See Appendices C and D) HILANDAR #396 (240) MONASTIC RULES of ST. BASIL THE GREAT End of the XIV Century Ch. SI. Serbian/Rashka (s-u) Paper 321 folia Fragment 759/X also belongs to this manuscript. HILANDAR #646 "LADDER TO PARADISE" of ST. JOHN CLIMACUS ca. 1360/70 Ch. SI. Bulgarian/Turnovo (u) Paper 155 folia Fragment #739/111 also belongs to this manuscript. APPENDIX H FIGURES FOURTEENTH-CENTURY WATERMARKS FOUND IN MANUSCRIPTS HOUSED IN THE LIBRARY OF HILANDAR MONASTERY UTILIZED FOR MANUSCRIPT ATTRIBUTION 213 Hilandar ms. #19 (folio 9) Hilandar ms. #392 (folio 34) Hilandar ms. #55 Hilandar ms. #19 (folio 18) (folio 25) J t FIGURE 4 "CASK/'BARIL'/FLASK" 216 Hilandar ms. #476 (folio 363) L. #807 FIGURE 5 "TWO CIRCLES INTERSECTED BY CROSS/STAFF" 217 FIGURE 5 (continued) Hilandar ms. #55 (folio 2) Hilandar ms. 19 (folio 23) 218 FIGURE 5 (continued) Hilandar ms. #342 (folio 3) Hilandar ms. #392 (folio 6) 219 Hilandar ms. #48 M-T #6878 (folio 61) ^^.9D FIGURE 6 "VASE/POT" 220 M-T #5303 461604 y Hilandar ms. #48 (folio 212) FIGURE 7 "LETTER L" Hilandar ms. #48 (folio 13) Hilandar ms. #258 (folio 3) FIGURE 8 "UNICORN" 222 Hilandar ms. 148 Hilandar ms. 1265 (folio 176) (folio 6) * FIGURE 9 "UNICORN" Hilandar ms. #55 (folia 62, 6) Hilandar ms. 760/V (folia 4, 3) FIGURE 10 "DEER" 224 Hilandar ms. 127 Hilandar ms. 128 (folio 1) (folio 2) FIGURE 11 "PEAR WITH TWO LEAVES" 225 FIGURE 1 (continued) Hilandar ms. 14 4 Hilandar ms. 257 (folio 187) (folio 97) 226 Hilandar ms. 257 M-T #4336 (folio 20) FIGURE 12 "PEAR WITH TWO LEAVES' FIGURE 12 (continued) Hilandar ms. 127 Hilandar ms. 256 (folio 3) (folio 25) 228 Hilandar ms. 142 2572 (folio 2) • f Hilandar ms. 146 (folio 228) FIGURE 13 '"LATIN' CROSS" 229 FIGURE 13 (continued) Hilandar ms. 147 (folio 2) G_3 i :• Hilandar ms. 148 (folio 3) Hilandar ms. 142 Hilandar ms. 146 (folio 246) (folio 17) FIGURE 14 "LETTER A" 231 FIGURE 14 (continued) Hilandar ms. 610 (folio 18) Hilandar ms. 143 (folio 17) M-T #3927 Hilandar ms. 454 (folio 58) FIGURE 15 "CLOVER" Hilandar ms. 143 Hilandar ms. 257 (folio 152) (folio 110) Hilandar ms. 454 (folio 48) “ 1 r - ' Hilandar ms. 454 (folio 50) FIGURE 16 "'LORRAINE' CROSS" Hilandar ms. 146 Hilandar ms. 147 (folio 132) (folio 19) 82 FIGURE 17 "LION" 235 Hilandar ms. 180 (folio 17, fragment) Hilandar ms. 422 (folio 107) FIGURE 18 "SCISSORS" Hilandar ms. 226 Hilandar ms. 473 (folia 2, 4) (folio 117) L \ Hilandar ms. 610 (folio 120) FIGURE 19 "CROWN" 237 Hilandar ms. 254 Hilandar ms. 298 (folio 98) (folio 1) FIGURE 20 "COMPASS" 238 Hilandar ms. 474 Hilandar ms. 254 (folio 62) (folio 108) V L. #782 M-T #2446 FIGURE 21 "HORSE'S HEADS” 239 Hilandar ms. 476 Hilandar ms. 392 (folio 365) (folio 432T" FIGURE 22 "PEAR" FIGURE 22 (continued) 240 Hilandar ms. 254 t Hilandar ms. 420 Jfolio 222) (folio 10) L #815 Hilandar ms. 254 Hilandar ms. 392 (folio 228) (folio 436) FIGURE 23 ” 'PATRIARCHAL' CROSS" FIGURE 24 "BOW AND ARROW" Hilandar ms. 255 Hilandar ms. 375 (folio 2) (folio 2) d Hilandar ms. 391 Hilandar ms. 477 (folio 268) (folio 67) FIGURE 25 "DRAGON" 244 FIGURE 25 (continued) Hilandar ms. 612 Hilandar ms. 618 (folio 45) (folia 52, 69) IIII//H 245 Hilandar ms. 256 Hilandar ms. 257 (folio 129) (folio 241) FIGURE 26 "LETTER G" 246 Hilandar ms. 257 (folio 86) M-T #5121 FIGURE 27 « "LETTER A" 247 Hilandar ms. 389 Hilandar ms. 476 (folio 1) (folio 1) FIGURE 28 "HUNTER'S HORN" 248 Hilandar ms. 396 Hilandar ms. 759/X (folio 19) (folio 1) 21 FIGURE 29 "THREE MOUNTS SURMOUNTED BY CROSS" (Fragment #759/X belongs to Manuscript #396) Hilandar ms. 422 (folio 96) FIGURE 30 "HELMET SURMOUNTED BY LION" 250 FIGURE 30 (continued) Hilandar ms. 454 (folia 17, 11) Hilandar ms. 473 Hilandar ms. 610 (folio 20) (folio 32) FIGURE 31 "VASE/POT" 252 Hilandar ms. 475 Hilandar ms. 6.44 (folio 18) (folio 2) FIGURE 32 "FLOWER" 253 Hilandar ms. 618 (folia 46, 49) L #786 FIGURE 33 "BOW AND ARROW" Hilandar ms. 646 Hilandar ms. 739/III (folio 5) (folio 1) FIGURE 34 "DRAGON" (Fragment #739/111 belongs to Manuscript #646) 255 Hilandar ms. 180 Hilandar ms. 422 (folio 20, fragment) (folio 159) Hialndar ms. 454 (folio 90, fragment) FIGURE 35 "DRAGON/GRIFFIN" Hilandar ms. 19 (folio, "unidentified") FIGURE 36 HUNTER'S HORN 257 iadr s 760/1 ms. Hilandar (folia (folia i 2, 3) iadrm. 474 ms. Hilandar flo 18) (folio HUNTER'S HORN FIGURE 37 (continued) flo "unidentified") (folio iadrm. 19 ms. Hilandar iadrm. 254 ms. Hilandar flo 4) (folio CN in cn FIGURE 37 (continued) - #4913 M-T #788 L 260 FIGURE 38 "ARBALETE" 261 Hilandar ms. 389 Hilandar ms. 389 (folio 443) (folio 469) <)© f\- fi L #802 O © FIGURE 39 "LEOPARD" APPENDIX I PLATES FOURTEENTH-CENTURY HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPTS HOUSED IN HILANDAR MONASTERY KNOWN OR ATTRIBUTED TO BE PRODUCTS OF THE HILANDAR SCRIPTORIUM (Sample Pages) 262 PLATE X HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #3/1 (SCROLL) (Folio lr) % 7 cZ>,fifi&'Of. rijwiHAt tft W ^ K t i u r i l r L fiaprmiii uu c s .akaauitcjpAAiik. V c h :a. a k *x o M. S \ ... ' - \ v '• *-*• '!• • * I ..A CdflOJU!. ftilA-’ f«r iipom t roif aom : otftkiuittuiijnplr ncbi'nctit V,- <3/o ttjjtkk G { ri^’lTHAUilUk M.m V’i OEATOIitjiHi'M^ IlCrO'^fA :• • CDHOtOCHTH MHOUSp :. p y t iTi SS^/h rlu > Gn/^HbtfiLifii^Aoy,riA -. q n/ivftiUsiii-i n 0yri.x9 .rt •, Od>tT»THU«AfcJlHJt. (HAOh^ViA-brtAJUO lillSJi UHT&f* J> » ’ k m a *tto a % a . rt'iaiO Q noc AATll HM i i'ATl-IIZ M AA H ii ii til E A D A H tt H nt/i UJ — .M ' . - . . . . • pAAMOftA. r«y noM - O v u t h tiukojYiitjicriHK AijiAi^i.HTiA«Mka‘tMErflt'u«yMiyjMMi» unpin* MAMiJJMA/UO . ro’yil -.. Ot'ArjHTlKUlMkCIfJfflHff ., H t m e r i H K AiuAM»»ttALu»iijib. ro y n J U A < dWbiTfViiMfc toi'rwnm*. uciJYiiijjfHim nuKoraA'fc’ i Hi nil w MM.iotTA KMt&H Bjki rTy > Obl GflTHlt HU E Rpa'lCTAOy LlCOYtl LfilflHH DLUHOfoKi ra Auj-EE 11 tcAt*hi». r?k-no£js4 m m « ...OribrpOlir^HTl.Kl CHA~i~ AMHT/l j fiMAl’O taynatTATA-V- |! 1’Vif no w ;. & npomk th T h tt ti«\u» 4 . I'lpti HAJ/ilt LIJtlAjtk C L4J £ mM ki li &QAU k'ATHK^AOkO d> CElTHHIjlkficiJUfcnaMAYthOlflHWtl • i .H H A H OLKOyUi/lhJLfJM^U • Bind IJlkJJlHliH *il&pkfkl PLATE XI HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #9 (Folio 8r) np’frync rpTt r&oif ri cI’m c o h a . h -t a a ' w HJH CIAJOOHk CHI tiCOHHHL . T k l HA ftUII1(tJ<{f Tpfc.'KO . .K lrtO 1.-. ftkoy'TjJ'i’H/'M . »|7 . A. no . frhlfiOT't IU H^fiTfifiA rvtAHAtio. Hojtrp*irrc AHAfC tOBA HHfTpSM . <3 I T f ’t T f cjsiMMnm HA-fvimiiAA I'irA.utAjcay- Krtmt nHCAAxcoycH ii nppqn. corp'tTov’Mi uca^hakco cu^oaa fimc a3H/i HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #10 (Folio 4v) (A Art 60OJjA<0 pA^ABM . 68 O^/tUjJOAM COftiAA COpy,'fri«l . W art Aim jioAii iece *a . ieum ru pun a a a L )p .\ . AATTU LJI>b pOAU C 0 A O tsl\COMA co IH M t. CflAON/COMmf pdArt p« OOAr^A . poaoAKAmtpoAHAaiA. a b i A m e p o - A r t AC A . A C A iTv t p 0 A rt ICOACAOMTA . ICOA . 1 I .... - ' . ' CACp.\Tlti£pOAH , ICOApA\JlA. ICOApA njiiTitpflAM, O ^iw . co^tA m tpO A rt. icOA 'ff'AiSjlA. ltOA'f’A\/in\ipOA« • . A^A^mtpOArt, . e^£tciArt\«p« A « • IVJIArtA CC. I K). \J\ArtA «ci‘Alft£p»Alt/ AigttHA AB^ACON/fttpflAft ICOClM . ICO ClAlT\ep«AK. HKpATHW 6TI, 6 b iip 'tc t A r f t i l 6 B A b 'y ’ACO ttCK O K . n « np'frftArf NH rt\f BAByAtOMCl^ftJU . ie^O w iA p«A«- CAAA*f irt At-rt . C AAA • f i t ! AltU pOAH, ^OpOBABtA A- ^BpdBA BCAmepoAH, A tioyA A . ABioy'Amtp* Art/ feA lA K H ^A A . CAIAKHNA rtvfpfl AH^ A^«pA. A^ym tpoAH. caaoka. t A 266 PLATE XIII HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #13 (Folio 5v) W M m en K n i? \‘v WftKAi:on^TTW«5Hf. e V A U yVKi t - if f rihmn41 m mivuri rai t n " \ ■ -lipot IS'I' ljlA.^'iyCf . IILTIIC M 'liim iy'j-,!; “ t f c ^ l S I {Ah, t\ ^ \ $ i 1:11 IH Ii W k IIj)0fh'/,'III.’, — ^ H T .l K 0 C/K HAa4 '£ rt.\^fV Zti ,r — iiHA .uA *«A jiy'ori«^y'i*'ji,&Aiv'- 'r i’JUki.yrrhi Ki,oycT«M * .muivo r, s Jiit I A U fjifc.~i.1 KlOftb . * IUUIIC-I ( ,__ mu i{^.tii^jtujyu f-o-iii i *u 1 j 11 .- I m 1,1,1 . ^[tiiiiiiL’biiiitnpous'L’ifiArntfjiay tiimwicttyVrf\Act 1,7.1ivm uVt .^.-timiwMiAr-^.ut«ni’Cii/yiihhti 1 #41-1 ." /uic;ri.Ti1;9^0 v'tn U . Quij.i ii r T: •: a 1 iAujgyyqjjSiAiMinirfryec^.;>; |rrr- r^r-H^ A CA rVk^JtTTI .vfc^T f i: C • ‘ • ^iniiiH^Vn^T^^/hv^by'Gpfciin^ =i ~r-^^lliy.Tir^t^U'r.111 MAIIlH.ul inin :'w »4i. ' • •* * *» 267 PLATE XIV HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #19 (Folio 7r) i;L-.mayliaiiUjsanHKtran. h m .h u M il ;:m : (wwi^5 **n' ‘ np vrTitin*| h O Cf ay ihm mb ■ hm 'L'.hui curjpuu M ml H»l J,frTIH I U U I ttVMjlt M O y 'iT»h i ii * m a m 7|Nit>ihih*' A/UpToy K c-J- i?h i.t.U M H rt' ii tt ay L'at.t.u u h h 1111. n i: iio.in 1.1 u . ii bp Cr.iH Ttiay b’a i'a ay H i| * w Ma y h»i iiimii n< b'aai b rr.H i ».*■ ci.Sb it pa .-nti t» 1 VJ It H I II In I* AH : I MI i : 4 h M I in t ft A (Hi. IIH III M.t AA T p H .r u Itr; ni.IM.jM~ r v a i i i ay"MoyTH • h i :a m t h ty tra I.'.m'.'.IHIA H t p It 1-j.lH M.t.t I'AilliyH Tint It A< II 3 1 N.t I «4i.t Mint » .VI* i It H i t i ay fta ftc.ut.tjim'.t uittw m t MN lU .I.'id AAliH.'iaAUIMIiilTpTtH O T IIkM A /.ltT u i;«TkTA»lll It I -I TH •. t S T 3 ? At rl ft K I T } ■; ti f f " it lil t tA S y • . > 268 PLATE XV HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #47 (Folio lv) gtuuniA ujurri'i n t r r «"h n i ’/ i t s 6t,u f tt i n to n ^fcftA^ re* rtf cuncAiiiMnVrtjT*^/? ^ LftftU C MM I* i:«t.» ii r ft it c i h • lift* rttfft fti’tir.ft triw miiTmiiU rTLMM^rf. n (• 11 ft • J 1 ft III IIII ft f M Ml I :fft Lit (At toil It f A 2j j ; « . \ Xttri»ciMrHT7iiw**LVihAXi^iTiiiuVLfe*;vi 'i •- - *• I »>■ ••••• ^ ■• j.rt' jvt-ji-i..’ .•? ii^.«.iAI#^Wll»»nftLA»ft*«Yi>MtR>^,^.''iiv’- rtHiTMifH ri” W j^AA ».fHeA^Vm ii * 11 a/ ri ii rt (• X(iuEiiroiK'^iirux»17^-r' 269 PLATE XVI HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #48 (Folio 2v) C ’C U l i tyy'UlHlAItS&lfHltJJ UXHWnMjgHKa SV^ % *yoanLw »,a* jtattna&Ljm e i &> C H A M tli sS^mMsciiiHAK?wifUfPni rp«* (Tg i4 :>«***• V M 8 3 2 S 8 & 'c&uujiffe HCftfMdTOlsI v^woEeawy** (fLJHUT HStttca d K r o i n tXKdA iSBSRSSimBMtgMt««£6ofuaw H V V X i l U l V w x^tuno lJifH 1 »"» W » W / A ? » i Wyjfl* • ’ . A o i/o rj o a i iA • • * i • •.. j .'i n *,;<»•,' • "iNHirvr vv v v )h ryH:iu HuS'l-ik h MUXOIIW • o JV«rM^*Vrrt1jyMHWVsSH1H "liJ wrwavTiYN wYjvisihm • a AwmrHVrfVc'o'iiwwu' vwta^.v.'C • hviTYiSvnh h>shyh«>iw vyt'axw v'O ’a \ •»XI y J»3VY • MOVXMHVxJjiaXirWH^UVY HO V i )r»H ijxnj.)»'y iJ^jshvhh)m >w h im irN an ■ nsnij.H i'rtm sA toJivJL ■ rojim yv viH inm oJu >uj » x h A o 3 j.Jj. >a'J£»( am rv aA n o cnaij.)y.q iA h K»ii»)))a,H3»u)N ax.AaaHHY /nnv) A t a f t m a i H H VVJ OJOM YVaVOIlUl rnsailVlVV • w/lHHJ.riiiw»HW. ?J.HVJ o X hvim ■»»wjrfi»YAiV • M Ba.a‘li.V i.iv!f #* ** ** *.(" * ’• y*- • **" 1SI ^.W MlM^a M1TW9 H0«J*?llCOW ’ ^.Vf Jl YXL!!? ItUM o-t»a K«|frn h h v Y »tu 'M*«i Y«J»viyVii w oMjta^.v>nMMYHwiv '»>»nij*vY» YJWJwiax* • m« > axA ort HMJuiavvMiti 'irtr« w.iynhAy , ■ * -\AL' (JOT oiioj) ss# xdiaosnNvw diavis hvonviih IIAX aiVTd PLATE XVIII HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #79 (Folio 2r) UjiMiffay*. rtftfiM i _y . JL -r * * _ S^ u"twjiatb iff n.irinc.i n'f& i?ui $],*& K itt*£ •' r’ii7)v(ni /ttav.'vfsk ifinTi fcj J nniffiT M fiot . H fu n a y V n M r p u i n n o < AW m.i . Hft4frjfi.4.iwmrrt rayffufTiM f n « < r . rt“a h ir.tK o n riit TrtM &a).44 £r* • »|& n - r' ’• —r — • yicant t nay.'Tnm( ,irtb unauib . Hfoy n ^ 'n e .x ^ jM iuin aooiV. i - . T K l . “^7 • m » * (' * ' C&0( . n-\n (TorUw/rMjtf . n6f.U.tr>i^4 a’yrm s.M U . M rruanktniHiM rttrnlj . rtfcna*4 <:ra 6 kvvtr^mlim k hijmi& • /— <• ? ‘ “TvatN "r rrt ~f- W w /t«iM jst.n.tn . 0 fU n(&iej *« rucai''. m tfalunnui'tt bj>b f^icn eyn uifTn.uu* i'iiuj'n. itTtZonaSittmi 1 ' ~=c .jl . v- • .. , ' Y>auutimn« . n fr ttu iA U it u p i t ^t/M.Urum • PLATE XIX HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #84 (Folio 2v) .. . , *’ VTO/VlY' H/VHHH lllKOl/VlV, h i , * - ./ . -# i . 9 . *AKo;ft . fA^oyArttatt vf/WA/nairo n th l; ifeVtvstt rtiuanut/*ot caa V o c t i .H C #l«y* /nH 4 WHit/nk rcoA’irHA up'tiwioMA . /MAH/IlllCI njctk-A l'klH KAIftt l|p V . H H ^r/tu vatCAtrt 'fyfA /M4tr« h o i jut , K'A rvovVKAM W AtM urit/»'tw ofrn K'Mimaiy^y * • .. • ' ' ' (AAftAlAQKIM . HU MU VI HjH^UKAIt l|IA . I’M n i £ I tM l AM /KHXATO . qyWl4 ,via«ro CT^'X/»1/tKMYt*tTJrt/\'U ^ h’ka M^atK’trH . Kii^tMicrajr/fCM THeM na^iMWV/«»iAiV /hhcj/ka(hia 4 f <' (VM 1'/1J' «"a 10 IA/»¥-/»ft H'trt Al/VIU A/faKN’frKf ttAHrHU. • 0A1 .. . * , 4^* » m i h k c t h k a ijfi/i4/K(Hii rajr^yijm ^a tpl/MOl R’iWI/asaia 'MM fAAfl/MllTAl/lrlM ^(CfUK MMUU/1H . fA^C ipK AJn HMM .MKO^A^OVjlilAWt^iAAl M/IOAl^MAI/V1MOc![iA(“ ' Mit^ockIi|iai*|A^'aiTrs cax^uiinii .MAra'pay^a VpO^’t ’TUllH ^aC'TUTM*'. H K l K f l f A naiTAAniA 1-rinifiT n«Htn-irxiii(. a m v m V A tr /iH ' ' 1 •_ . *!_• . ' ^Tz HA*rai4K^ift»ykfi;fCC/irtAA .nnMT^Mm/tf tro n^tsoUftR^Kivt tla a'iim ii^h i i (Ihmka r a j^ v T , ( H XAKfe T*H VI urn S i l t I'KH THAN. liiaiVM All r f UiMAra^AcUoir.&nAtU/K^rAICHMUCpilA/WliBcl •r/m M K N fc lV A l;(H ^ -M H c £ « “ HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #126 (Folio 5v) MMjrfcrtA^iiatMTiKra nnr» ..i ftj?^ th i-r-I / k t M ’l'o-' ■TJdKi n : : :;i • c v k r o s ^ u u a i y t p n h'fcpoio iui<»ifiii {i. • im no.* •[■(A f i-t im p f>‘ n I. i ri'a {k'‘ k’.i'.T\(nayia-Ak.r.f tr.i ittC A r.tna*-a .. k*Mk- i.iit'ik CKki p.. a ?. hKM'k’tU^hni/trn.i: •A'o c r 11 a k k* a y / m v..i; ir i t • k* f^ 111 1.1a k* t. t i^ttac kppt u i m \ m .i • u T R O i t c t A/t i.tafti (iia.ia >■:n - K0 n« Ml Min H T t ft hi tlKAkH.C II • A ft.\.l I nai'.ii.i..it at i i•; a ' 1 ‘ 1 i ;u";i nmacs. no Jo i m t j p ' c c i’m i ^A.t’ajTii aai A kTK/ip feAARlUl &C’fcM»»l/t^A«tA.4 k . MC m k n ay 1lit a it a i t t A m a y tr f r p * . 11 ij a • KmrAkttkia {,T*iaki npincivmtjjit ruhfikia (K'tr.iki ^ki. ritiyM^a a kt-i:a.< k aiiyip /a iau 1 e A iu (. t r p ’r a 1 to c1j iif M'K 'i.UJ'tT M h l K T C t t <*' ecu am (A t(0 /Tv£npt(ra-it£orttKiik.. ' M*« «ah t a n a ha h r i.t n o t e ytA.ro ~r’uAo* PLATE XXI HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #127 (Folio lr) 08111489 s^cor K.iiiniiMi. ^ t*rpu. httKfMki. i-aa.i. \-ki-rnkiAAk i«^T4A^ihan^» bw(I(Jkhm'h aakit ji «iiy™&*fc.Yn«v*y• rJ ~ . • JJl.UtK YHX< N<6IUN .j'rtli MM.ftt llpOHJU nfibi ' JCl. iTkfc^AC A.l^li«Bfc.^W^AITHbW«/* W;;' ’’ IjB-tTfc N< IIM UU & . I • |l.yM JtKTtAHHq ffk(kAi«Sa&m« nfite*ttn\,A»H (kVAAklMH »finr'*v ic.U bk^AAMt^H skrt/.'t'Tnui/i. R-t-TA fi^AiEkf tijS A M I. AJATSiMHltU ( p-iiuc^itt ^iT&ayki. N.in.tC’rnnfilr&ajitiji uiiMHi.t. MKSM^j>AA a y T iiiu n a u iii. M A^AHTM WJCThAAjtH. K «jl >< f 4B it A ^ V y Ml* PLATE XXII HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #128 (Folio 3r) v • nnpJ&UM U^Uuit 6 M nfiucikAuiif bknp*kmna*mt^k j u t * . U j'lltU tH , K^IUflA^pTkBkKtlptH M A t bld^/ItK ^N l. i u lAKa/MM^baAM/uttpxnpttii-kTii. akntm ijM nrAW 141*4 . bltltpktklH MCjMpTbkl^I rntAABATtK-t •. *— inki Ul«npYTArtT-iA.ITD»e ro. (U.irrAArtlfAyb'&A'&bUlt'fO 64fc; m ip't(A t HdiAkM M H n i « f t t n o iipptriVe • AbaiaEapaAMA.teni. iinajio BkBuiB’k joi*inti. t - I t a A /r> t n e c * r A < T 6 aii'i*rki|iM t(. Mk‘U Kl'OAJWTli. XJIATM k(btH^i>p<(sl. BkTbaCIt HpKe>Miip(if ajTptSNAra (b 4 MAA A | 4 y i l * t A A A n 4 H 4 {n& Ulifi . 'VLufld e^A B ki aipAAApA«tf nMiAHcnTHti 4.uidU injiaaul.m ft. AA ■ A ~t HAEkFk... 't'h. W4ip WHMAfli- BM »N4Uli[’r f 4 ’ ravi^iHA^LnpTTa CT-iA aTBae- altHpit^rptTinAHi t n u . A 6fcnnm/^»^’TM/MtitM4AABYt ._tAAr>Aal»TA«niaTnxt ( A A B A L| p*T BMW T I . CAAbA C M l j T t n H i a T B a e M a y . e A K ^ ; ? (U Y A A I14A I4E Y t ' A B pi MA»ip np*6'lyA&im^ Ab*tnpAA®1*1"4* tkrAAtaukBknAki|iAu«m Bkt’t ^ 2v &aka blTts*fctT-fc*jkKrtbu>v*fc. BlAMkIH AbA4- «EU tttnp 4 (^*lHM ’feltlDHnKlk,IlflM ®. gjjj:' 276 PLATE XXIII HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #142 (Folio lr) \l ^ © fl Tl A» Mf XI • a>N| ■TIC A - yf \^ h ui^ i* i-il n • H p M nJ^A l r A ^ u tA je ^ l. c,*j lt* jl **y" mw tiie p -* ui * ajIi ,vt ij^iw i" plAMr*im«pAA- Mft *»Ai|ieM^(i u /h ^, c a ^ o a s ?^ ,*■ no.’x^»>rlMY*‘ eieMfwie.n-wi i j J j ~ nv < •*aa *r aJt* (Aidiuoi «--r.\j • B»( f » A-'slfSA^ inpi»AA«."'»HA.a M '*•>■>< M'^C a ' K A/»lf*lti4 " 1 a I H“ ". n4<* f Cir4^, Cj ,iy^«(n.M«lrtoi • 'niia a>.' iiene(raA*t,*jNM^A^a| ewi*rjenA,i(^*«l s ^ i^ > a>iai ,r,«\* KSH-rpl o^firl^x Ai^- H"‘ctnaii-vt •• i. V X!!.:::,! PLATE XXIV HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #142 (Folio 65v) r; .v • iV- -: •*:: • *ijl+ 1T * * .• iffinH A'bipifi'. an a*kp««i iififAaitif le^iTi'ci .. • 'I**14 C i\T?ran.i„; ;:V'.^ ' “rtrnM tayi^H jkT vt. h k-ttia« nnaMbitA*«bi8, •nlon^*6bt 'flJn« T.’tbATM BknnKUk, npajB -tn* y T « A n | t b «A/. i^KB h it j 278 PLATE XXV HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #143 (Folio lr) i. ?v? v,ih* C .i',cjTra tw m<« I’ll h b Z ^ M ‘ ( v ^ w • r a * • i" • ii* • a E Ami soKr E /ArTfcCTrox ^ 4 • BI.HAHUbi.TE rm iH jippife. *V,r . - H tbatfn A ay'ftrt tiA/fcAACBTifiay n p ^ tB yTvO C ~ -;■ ^ v t l ’T 4 b* 0 H> npo no H 't^o y K T b r 4 yv«.®^^lA^!--HH ,*.v< ” rtf 6HHJ Bf AIUC4/WOV- , - 1 .•-.••••- -- ^ . ii- •. k'AAlVbttt'f’TI • 4 1 I.* l/CttI r 11 Trf» T«M *O ■ ; V Jif Ml 1 u 4 Kd H.1 A I y " M J I I 0 IMbHfn»Vl«B 4 A 4 fc jTiKHMtayvCA . M M HEBIH.p’f c ’! i Jf , tifmnrpa/U.ttei.iH rtA ii . Ht'fLt’rtiu/LALfi6caAitiiiiHMmcTMK/UbnoffflA^fiiiiHiyffCu i\red}"^>ssy‘l ! l T r^ 'a zbanhm Hf TA'trtrtJir^uplOKjrrimCiG’il ’1-i ‘‘kftbI • H40y/Ut fflKIM npp*H .Jlrtfll'^plNfibitfcMA ■ - r-H% km • HpuAi^iiMKiuzjAMHiiK/Hnut^rtrjivrk ij; BM^tn -COMAA40AH BtHMt Bbt’t'^a ’ j. BAitoy • mu m • c Tp M • K i|h • n a ’ffMbf ~ ^ £ .yU payfHMKMbayw^BAKMAcayjfiAME^MVftfiijWfc • j.:~-;£ KA^mnfi^OTpoicaBtiijt , MAujAp^AiffiEtjj^; ...... ^ u.^tBHHW . HlJ^AH6htK0^t • A’t'fCarteBiH . *. y.X !-!. AAATRI. • HpACAtbTBOpM fTui H CA TB6KT# -I-~ i[t7 ’ir ^ f ijlH HEMBlfJbAAOlB T*fcAtCH»yHJ • H fy U lt^ flY ■ .^ rtcaA’t^Hb • tptjair;tuj^A4S'AHNHf€ ■ nat.T 279 PLATE XXVI HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #145 (Folio 4r) •V C - M NIAM Y t'UHf (i|" R M/tTHKA l?l •: UjitHMIA'frTMMCXTKIU'NIf ' 'K™ 0 ' tTHNN.UK;tA*T«AM.’r«Ti( V IMrt „• flV ' - ^ **' £ -ITK (.llixt «H f IM YAH H .UtTfWOVHCT-M r.\'(itfc(!WtH' . (T’Ra.'a'frt-'AN« luiltUACIiah'aPplNHM'KTaKP .•». iii*VTti.:wou«A»YSrtoyiM- r i itjpnil'l NAA-RMCTMftflHjatfSf ttM ’l ’V ■ ' -■•n'r p. KtciAKn’coo'i’ivciipK mi^T.itp.tr"kMUH;'i*i»>p«HtA . '• r- A'A'^'AAM'I'AUliy^lTtM.lMlll flOn'ttT'i i I < II Mi lilCp'SgnAIMUIIITJICAl IrgaiiaAAALOi« aai tv.»• tI yJA IMHIt WMrCCTAIOijMOAiTI • I I *C(MPE^N«tTMrMa>jj<«p«:KAf ..f.^ •^lin’HIEM’RaEVMCM'J fHiri^ABi I IfM ' lAJRt-N.l (I ac/rtf ABKTC IMJ4 ' i t^ r a r * s *.■ "jjr/j.tn tvw v n u » ™ i" nrm »i a »HTVUrj..t*l'*uuktlU ■. •■ ’(’<.*■■ • CLii*■•...‘•♦♦ ■ M nvuilinirjhb»j. •• XMMIWVujlf T .T-V J BCk} »»>•• V -ZrjifrjnrTtnw X u xyiiiM »i«atu b« ujtMi unvuiiu'i 11. yiHuxjJk9l*?vvv ^k£ V . rrj.iHj.km li-.yiviiry. «yMmtri.Bj.iBuu •' swjjSi jiA j * ‘ ' ’ J"i ' - - ‘ I . ^ SJgU: M «« muih,»» Biuii «... yifc • Vi j; nuv'jq\ i Iiin'lqi.'rn^nr m l ' ! 6':' . x 7 . u •"• * » T U9 ri. >»• *J * ' —• **• «- i ritK-f BryrwMucir-i.nro bwvIiJiu xiBuu 1rv 4 .JauxiBj.xv • iM K ninfiuivcM vvvpu • onmv Hr4.l1 ju x x»w im ^ i«o'i»r tu»uij. rS-r « >5 . runiuM nijim . nxjrj yioiu u. m m b x. f JBrvrmy u w ir 4. J. VB vi m .rrvrw ilifo • b ^ib.h i 'voibmuiiIii x tv ^ i’lBia.Ju ii »rru •« Jt»MlvJ.irv ltjinMWM*-t'«urn 'in v n iin * ! uij.i»Jjttrv J.1 1 .J c : ••.■ 4.1m VJ f«3 trvwuura^HJu umJnjoiyli tUMimBrJj.J»uur«/»u . yv.7Tv»Y tT Jrv imstvt)vBvnyt h j u iiu . • unnt.urvxiBujoj.WB ?'»r.)B,iBvoxuHrBiJ.WrviBiiBj.idi,vitC-- ‘ *T • C ' rj.i«.iu«iui)iwriru , 2-* — • , • .unituvtoiu.' • — - f ? f _ xv li-ow irrrnit _jinnmy? jj,Jvxvruixa tliiVfiiM • xibubvU ' Y'I'i'w u b a JI'-. ima rJj.it uiuuAnu lUJjuj-imru I»li4 XV • (luurvxru Vi .im BBaTtuiKjolu tij.iii:rs£tvY irVllBIVM B A I f i o s » t l t X »U 1 I I W • u v y i i w i a * x ' 3 |B)iair; • irvunuj.k :j.ij.slHaiaui i'3.B *.•:• l(vxr»Hv>B • n x h w m j v w ».• «rr x *!• *t*MU' M ikxvTS.«iu>ti Brr u »rv ?i, •HuVxBj'^Jrrr^'yjy “» u »bj. . H i i n > r 4 B 4 H i3 BurnH .u*aU»ri»ja » S»S'Vixr»xttlxvj.))4» .turrnj H riin l ■> a tax*rvjBryxJjp hVi J.«VuyjHV4.j.l^(|I)(4 • vi wni 1 vb *¥J u v U a on b k »VJ.» :• xl>« HT » I1 4 V I <1 W trtjf vmB vJ« i* riiiy jn v » 'v • i»uvv tT.uV.BjYaniT»B*vrrnT alivuBrJ.| S)»3»9fMiMrv>* S A* — . ^ W >vnrj*^»»»'tni Hiif I t v t t j i u aroDMd. u«yj?M»,rt>iw« a j* iw y * u TCftXV-;ijyVv(AiiLl»iavx^FrTn,'JJ.n«iiiLkiivHiviittBl.^ bvij . MB*.** Bi ui-i b v>JVJ.H li u u b rj. 1 • wvrv f ^ Y U ^ n r l t Hvmmip m »*v i^BrayiVi HutjjCiHiinilx. Iii'iw rr>rum.uj.)*vrdi«rJos irltJiBBUVirhitg ut» lauu101 - ??»^iV,.*'rT,^KyV1*’ ' • lllJ.MrrVWBUJ.ltlB* ill iirvTs 1aw^VVtBfVMBBTTBI- ill•'— a J. 11----- IT TVM bo JkH's--- bbiiTT- *. * * ** ' ' v? ’ /^*^S»B • • -»' • (J2I otioi) 9frI# IdlHOSflNVW 0IAV1S HVaNVUH iiaxx a iv id 281 PLATE XXVIII HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #146 (Folio 83r) ,• i's'1 ITtttA.- fP«M aitp id ll ‘ e r * C"PH« •a 'Y l« p A x e A ‘ " •’tt^A'lM klAAHC H/dM l i d ■ tAI A d C |* • ^ " t i r f A A*P f ■ M * . • atcii'jiu MA*t'4MM o - ^iski- n fT o i^ m (« m ta 1 t^iiniNaipApM •dk'ti nf -tr t'T A+A‘1 r \ t — *a A*«« 1!- . £ ‘icTitjtAis^iA'tVt'Ak <£> .VtuiM ir i/t • e>f tiAlacirci h innt imTnl A • i p ’l' 5 * , !.•-? . ''MAlifi, MfifrtitffKiPKtl h • a't*s,**'^irfA‘u4*’" ;.. . .'•.iiTTiV'i , c ri ax x.a#* w s”t *4 »»Y sa r r w li *a\ niitij j4 (A‘ JA * .\ ■ 282 PLATE XXIX HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #147 (Folio 3r) C' £ . : • ujr.riicrie.Vi.U^MH.W'O li'fr-jj nAHtfiittuLt/ e'diUAKMra-H niiiM 'tui T’|'d((un^»i|MMif.i sj-ru*HTesc.U'i.iJrv AH1U< Kl.ll-M/ M ^KgiMB'limUHCOl'MlN’tfl. Srt nktiat|i-fii,\.t/vji(Mni'ig|S'i?KiNH- itAiyH.uflTpdJi’t.'ii'tKNoiitday (ipg^j.'MAduHdiM^oy kaun (Hauiitf-tW/ULjiirriH iijti ia^i-.«C T ..rA .rffMN.Y.IC)|„IM YA.tT.IB’BrifTHNoy.KrK'TltKJ^ (I'CHafSHCSVUIMHtllt *!'JIC1IYM B’illllmpCCOC.tHtT.UTC j.tnpn^ii S.iv At£EMlMe'f«YH!T« !VWia.l» /' 'I I oy t Tl NIB.UM tyAj! E'M*. .V' LuayuoY.rftiiMk.'iN^fi .turn K’tm atTf^.tprr.t-H ^pirto , H KlriHHlflMMiOiK N'iHfUSUN'l- HtCp.l^SIAHICU, !>£; t’A.< C.'R f fnt"'! ;o Lt'tn.lUJM tIBAAlp MnaHAi (TpAAANl'tl.'l ^ i r *V8.\CU TMt W&A lak’tttMftYApt H .UCTieorw.t H tilt Hr- ii.iriV M Ktiui^srTAJKAnuaVApH™ tKimuuiit o.vuii(li{4yn.\iun(c/' -nail.tAMtTt-M'MK-JturNKH.' l - ’lH trri’fH.KH^NMHUtWMwI Vi' HNHKieil.UUIt-.KC^WininH ASEIH Aal..'* Jjj mjidiwiepijii.CAroTHTNoriao TiaittA»iN6*juuuAeNHK«i S' C V t V M t n C/lStNlfltUtp MVCTffU ^HcMiCO.Ytp'tTailTKMnfMBtAUliCI- €1,,M MICJ C c/p t h j *. lif B'tpHsinaicAAW't Atic«r*AswT.iKUfoy»orp‘^»3i rpMttTjnHMnjAsac.MBKoy* MU(wknA.iMtn«Mfc.ASoetjfrtA 'r£?e 'I'H CABEMaifiuuyl - niMA.ITCAaHAMB»BtfaitCll ari{T'WAA._N{H£ff«(rtotpAY* — nm^ »'• M^rtY'TAAn.IKEMAA-MHr^nJA* jm M .’HiaCUY'fljlBCTHIB flfKlBk I - limHMlMellJABAlMm-t'irpt AUMMCmSllTHAA-IAJlA-MAH ' . OI/UOI4J.HA.'i»^fA«AIMlt trrtH KTATMM'MflAAIUHPa^At «G '•; •■" H/Hb’A»yAMAra£mri CNayTJBf (TUi»AsIjtM«»«^r*NN'iR*nA« wavrasaYyjfl rA'Rii&Ei -n’t.H' if/A*uAnSp^n’ htjmiimmmi,. t£fj:*.eRim uiiturrum yM - laA 't'n M»VApiM«uiAitrA«BAi *£:? . t#. •• 283 PLATE XXX HILANDAH SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #148 (Folio 4r) • i t — c S ~ * . V T * ’. w Z * 5 * t y ^ * -4 •. - l^'i-A't-rr* • *rt*M [/• at*h««i rxt^tiuo • c« C'TNM'filauiMM |MMj <*• lij|i » y d r A r f r n I ANt-'T^MftUX. ■fiAiNKC**! ■ m c m »*n«ryfr, * a # a i**H a w t ^ f / r f x • M a ^ v i a a r ,,\ J- Htfnx'Tt.AMe- :— c \ N^StA^MIte 1 laowl • uj«|» ** *M*X ^ ">* rl*» h \ i ’r 1\( n AfJ fL I u j <> rrrrM»i,#.r?A.^Hn^T«A«(^ • ITA »rtaajc< y M «»T»*n**^ujVan AA , - * Ccot'TAac^uiMl EAHX* u< (ira^iM M« J^CdrfVAAM<7«> ■ «iri : cir» ki <4)AA»r<>l • rj*»r aN iiu lq i^ ^ E Ar’rkMifVMUHii^'lSar^n^f' S # ^ f c «• • m u i «* H I ^ C# A ,#k if* K *« k*14 « «*«• ‘ <4u T>| u •rT*«« «-*l Ui H M. 1 . tO < ifT* M n 4 \‘ C iT m * tffVC*■ aitf M/H Cl < f t C|-l NMl|U • 'rt‘«X>sl' H U H ** c^lnHtjn* a4ciY'fJX^**N^ ^ chi*t h a \ * h h*a«»'tn4 ill” ^ fc M%| uahaaI 9 6^k .v«VzA h ^ T ’a'^ x ^ A c -* - *"""*!*- S ' « ^U. * P tAMlCtKM* rn#6Abu*ft<*A^««0 4kiu*w uidtNiit,,' a at«*<»#««T>-* m i|Ta( Ntmi‘<^A'*'in,ir^ Irt****1 w * | N Hij 7 r HA M Al,fM • H«V« ^■oAAuif flKAA^* f**«yMfcC«AA H AjTa * Ml\C» Y*f^ fti Hij M ' HL| * aTama« J» *4*H a^cui n i( ijiffA.1 l« M • N »C fW m*X f n I n Ww n • u»< i«y O C^^-M ^nptir^CN^ ■ nh<|m Ai^ a»/y'l#ycJL* {»KV*#^hA ^*a)uMi*«M *^Ta«7* i -* I - x “i f ... < « HV 0 d ? w,*/J”'* 4 ^ , jmDWIWhMMi/^.H Wllhjlua^S^ ,^OjfoilHlX.*lj H.w Jil 1-1) WWWMSVu^^’^W ;l*V J> 9 0,<« u ... « ^-1VU , W Vx X ^ / u ^ vh.v »--iw.1.«vvavdb«lrv<,Xv^*ivv- 4 rt 0 b'.I. fj U Vf Vty HI s OlJx.O UH;MUVI J| s T ' ^ yr»f>,*iujxin(Ui»-nijvuy:«iin • xtr^}ux***‘A'd « S-K.'JVJJffM^}BOY ^ v V o u jikii Ts r nip. 3 j ix/r Jv d u v u * £§ ri JH i vrvjSMsrThiMjj VSTttVoiUv«m )w9 u 3j u^ d ’vtx?vu -j> u do 9L'^*tt)me Ir d .Vc.i vrvMJii J4***^ ^ t iwJj^wvirijJitrttTs nvrtuiYAdojz" 3M]ih^sn^nw j»'i>»«<>» u*** I X: - 5 514 V „ - (J6 °TI°i) 8SI# xdiaosnNVW oiavis hvonviih ixxx axvid fr82 PLATE XXXII HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #160 (Folio 6r) i. ■ "Vi ■ • .• « _ . _• * | • •fT"T"r • •' * ■* . ‘“3. •, r * • - t t k tv { ■ ktAintni. ik’ 1,1 (k. i. i4rtiii^«y. mmiiiit iifui* T<. Kji.ii'm i in i.m u k .n T c n m im ftiwiki cA.icm no - *»» . ua . ; fti A I' 'i in i iT\t nm» M t T i i i'* y q.i Umi.i 4.il n«v n».m oyi'Ak _ n tk ity x«v c«y kHAt» h» • :»o r«»i«j;i k’kn-IUik Men* hk’JAhq'S^k iTVItatyuJlUI.I'f'L'^k TlfrTAW li^IMrtMltTh . MUIIllTlhkl lift, XAlta ,lHCn« IkA-* dAHTk. n 't .. ^ . ipC*. £ kniaiiuurnii'tu.ihp.Hjik- £ mVknara u a tt p .iu u .u i Ai»k*tiJii«j,^.\. n.i it* mt tin c u iy ,'U U k np-6 ?u a Art rrp Amay ■ . Dikfi ay M 'V t CA/nt rim Iibeaij- rifH u ih . ft^A > } MMra HrtMi‘n» « M tt/ ^jkl HkSffc TAk ItCH". H t'frtbb 3 ITAtyK Xkkl*ic«iAA&bttinH«jU -ff ’■* 286 PLATE XXXIII HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #180 (Folio 3r) Bj.. • ^'•‘W -• ‘Jet' j ^ r j'tv*V#'L^V< rt'r. . . . ** ri ^1l p.i rvfia Tf m tAt»n i-i m a m I. a r i o t s ' h'.\LTH bKr SACTA hh{ Ye.£.k Z A ' t / . A V / •> .,p . hH. A0b-p-knhH SJjKNHj:tl(Q billt'I’H May, M MlM AjCtm«H " ■ "v Cii~I “ !. >' >J . . __ __ t j .ro tiro, fi.K tt.cfrt i a i m m u r k k np'k> v ;^1- !?f*j ' ' # »•, ^ o 7 * <|* *0^ £? t m m it*r m . ju^pt £p»*r poyjxi. ^ * ; JOVHMb nHt,\Mf1HMI.. -pAmf HCCjjlrt *7 MAl.t IU!A*\mil.l, niin t,\'t fiLLMTO CTTC . 7.-j£ | toq.t nnotAoy Lu.MiLu.u’o n a MIA T.l 1(0 Hfflffi fcTjO H .( A 6'ft (t* >£j§S «..:Vni-Mk .y * ••■ 287 PLATE XXXIV HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #226 (Folio 6r) K Q * * V m H v 7 0 L :v» \ HH ■ . I l \ V ( . o r.> \ ,\o ( t h ii r p m a n fv k i jf i f ['-'S' n f/ H A *l*H f /I,Y ' r Mll( • »\/?0 /KLtlftO'te Clt\x\ ^TAri0A/»VA-NV n \ >:o A *'/» VM \-JXr L \\ j n e y c n o r i ' k i m \ A f \ xa V*A AA 0 K luA* • X ’ x * k j;- \iu /x /* ra B O R L ' ^ t v/; m i u HtiffUJtCt-nft'kAAf CH 'k A ( N«( AR Mg-\III frH-nQKl; /tv l H ?t\( k ’ G 9 lih, I \/;AUN/.ltf • ' » • . • hAhlfH^-kNMCAAl. nKOUK(r\ ' SH \ts ;i A L N ia mi.h’1 ;in i° i M e ? b ( i ^ K 0 f t U ’ L H YA 0 / f A f Aw, i t Y AU Y ft AA H B h 7K€ A'k AAn f\ . A • ' V* A, H O K kir.fl^yiS'l’ * 288 PLATE XXXV HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #254 (Folio lv) 53T . te.,; H M r r n . p r a a ( 6£ i . l l x j . iin^o'rAA(A«yi HI A .OEW'fni.M'AIMmfHfiAj1 JIMII .i.Uuiff^AmtriA ^^c5^W B X 'lfrnHH.N*rtKMW. M TStUlfrtA.HCHM lihT fitU . J. ^ birrAff B'fcMbPAAM W *■ fibCVtlUNHYk Bb^MBAMT'H^ iUiyfecTMMU CtMAH . BfS^iitABKii rp-fruiHAr*. HcrnHM tBtiujt r^ ^ tm e M C H W4B6. »AtC«KJlHMtVABK«AKffl^b :• C . ^T ^^rA yA B V ^t C’TAAHK^HMAmMtlwy rjlA^MAA . (lit up ^ ^ i t « y j n i B BAfti’e AA«»t -ttm « y M M M «wfr t c t jio-T't ■ vriS^*^^rX Hnn’tAr*mITj t p»_. i n / r rt AAHf * “ ■,A,ltT^H- i l^C I < fb E t H C*Tfb\ ti b tl< ^ M b \-b y . r.nB.Y.tA««y-fAA -'f - *"^Y ul£ McrA*' ^^W ft^^ew>Bb3^ntrti.if»l|br^b^birinArarAA(A'. ; t fr™Y H*Y l8m ^ t i HHitH M«A HTTtrt/ ^ | wj^ibcrrH M.t r^ iu ru r t h noAAA»yHM= MM li rAA^ B'tjJflHBb^TWDABH CAPi oyMMAHrrt *fc« aaa V a * n tBbUBKA M*yAf‘Y n ‘j1* , n**F0 r- Ch «y m h a t in ’U aa b a tA/i b ■■■“■■•“ sj—•...... \v ,' '3k ?»HJ»V3n)|W« tvkl>\YW nwwiY^Joyj^snwpuiSi T^AHMV34.j-L»UlU!V!uW , J - Ij : 113xvy* i h j 5 V • '''jtfilP. ' tJJi3 OM Y>? k . H---iiaJ.v?invuK ► '^w wvyJ u)n kiw jttipm W s f; V - *KV*. w ‘ 1YYV:: 0U>» *■ y vHVMjyujutu ;t»a ijui •3iv^; -fry.- ■ pj» * • • jWW.kpMlHHHJv'^U. 'in “ApitaaniM j v j j -. ni : urfa»YH.k»uBii vaJyinrn lJLtJpUIMK •Kwijf'7^.- • ■ ij*wv »vws ajurtK u iuiw . ivnx. J1*KW '.lVIM?— juimpuimtp KimJpsi ,«> whlTis'i. Hr i v i .■><. i - l j•? k ' / i. ommus Hi»ax yiutfoift) V V* ■Jk v j ' i n J jiji •. , « km u p s o u h J ip a rv si u im *] . r ^ •*-» nros Ju/wijH J/c^. *mv^ •^uJur iw- m • *^iyy'ru - j.- vhpukimjJ^murp -u m IJJ.3VMHV 13 »)iuxJv»v ^tynuwlzis wJkjLiuy -viu. hT uim km kY -u.irb ‘ HVsWllPH NHJ.MW1M oK •* / • . ^ i X i n 3U v m s y j h u v ; ; 1^38 iVtiHPu urmaiJ 'uhuujIfSYuyu "~"'%5fJHKyHVp^A»X Aijpuiu im»» •kjAivjwjumyv y . . i9»u/M *2 h j l •’rrv , *** *£*.' isKi*)tu ju/ m w u j '$u , Ji. ' irfa ksY k h m y ST ' C. ■ ' »*»• , • YJT^lVliMP . t+ a ^ ,‘t* HWPy’x u iVJrt H 5.flWVIBIU a « ' m u X » v m u u x m h u 'moucoviYM iyy v n n t i V i w u -u i m » *UM*J» ‘ KJH.5.I*J K3IM • f « j y a t ^ vvy k u p j h ^Y vh Jtivi vru}wWan>a wu nj tjYuiX*) iu^yijkhm ii/Jvo/m iumii» p u x n a 'IBMUKKil m 'Kiu^Ya v s htvirr1 X» ^ *• £ . . rr> wwjvrnntmiu i y b z w k * iJu Jyv'.1 ‘ .•■■■STir *w : : _ - * - *■ T‘r • ^ M .if- (A T OTtOj) 9S2# XdlHOSflNVW DIAVIS HVdNVHH IAXXX 3XV7J 290 PLATE XXXVII HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #257 (Folio 2r) •'<:-. av(AUiLU4& k.'roaRi.'tH hmj... . . z. '~rr. L • ■.''' ■- ^ 'v i-v*/" n *T4‘.M»tAMH fib • ■ ttjiHTAHTt fXHMH-'nO rjrfc. V': |?i • . . 8fc ' ? n«y tTMAA WWnM..MIMkK'4(f er^nTlj '- «YM'f?"m h {T‘cimj o . Attn. An«nif«f nf^fHXfl Sil’ "i^A". Hromfiwjwytfiffofb ill* ^HHp^fAVjRAAHIUCH -iv. B • Hfiffe MCKbfiljxHaAKf.U ^kKUHAHUUl^A^WNt 5£". lANKUllHbiTnU^TI) i* Mi TA K . A lUt*)Ef'iTOjfl _’ • "5* rOtf^TOUUf.. HtA&HUltCt’ CATin^'tlAUM, TOMT* fib . - ;; & n n6pf6AAM«ifJfjtiT»i.*A«y . oy mw a p a wtiafi-trAio^if mt^ASHA'buitaiifH, ca»«b S.ij^U0N^4i(AbTju»rA>/f.«i;^'./J* rp 1441 HikMwtrHit “'■ ” rf«E*i wflUMW#nAyiA^i '-;\_ AH-Bti- n^«• rX^fi.noMo tbE-t fifc^tJUUH^AnAAHl. ‘.t 'H; IflbNAUJA&iHMt-'C -.'llpf *firfcM, Tovuindrpf M iiiH ?. J~S| ^•' » • • i^A».» •' " .. NfFbCH CblAbfibftA v «M»«yEO&b^iuit, n i r y f w y - l ^ .’ tH ~LIt h/a. yt f !•; •« ■■.• ouijA mo H-ro Hfib^6^ijjoyTri-^>; f t( T A K A « W l i ntfifA'&fiAtt Hft^AfAWNb.-S^UAHjit " :j£. CNCUUIbCfiOHAXb . HnpOCTi rf f cm cuuA I':.-’ ■". fA IfiO lf r« , ItAAlOUt NAAb n tT A fi m ui n n t u a if r «. ]’y V _.v .HHMti »OJCA« TH^AH-ro. H(TA^MUINNbi:fi(flf^fU '■»*£■£ •. V. HTiflfiM’fe MCu(N^)fco*rpo Aif fcrj'nbTbiitbiif . wiii®'• ;?Vr; PLATE XXXVIII HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #258 (Folio Ir) . . rp - / T ' ' •/ S v a 'kL-' ?L Tftntaw eiii^w injrii--3 . T.* MAfAAjL A\^fAeci»y*; r >t'At tn'r n«"ftAAMI"eMln^fAAMrAH-Ayi'Z • irj«c»roriMt’rA'<’Tf . Mi wsl tyrOTt^B^Httls AM uiMCf. uua;Kt'nH'<'r«?K»atifiABZ,^norHr6 I * " SM£,h(ir«?Ai .MMMM n^MITMAA* M/TOAAAiy MMf HM . pe&0inMAAarAy • mAamtVhwfiiyhAA • ffiivHtM'lr!' , , ' U i v ^ • v^ntoiiUM"’"” i s it tl’i w it t itJ* v iM t- • <}tyi..i9iri"tjyjirv)0u mjMUSvrr t it t j w 1 j. h s. m V.tt 11 i •' y • *fJ< Mtttiitiin .• Hm»W*}tiru 'titVMJtit tiiivitu • ir> jn u i i u rj. Jr juiV. :j,'uu)iivifJu’ti l ^ i - l)ii'.uM /t» . jiriyujjufjua • uni . ri»9irvJ.t urtj.mfit fj.is.tvy • tjtuiv 3ilyi»»ritpirtiit* ■ jrli9titnj.>H • »j.ry^lrr^u*’i*JrVX»»>uT»iv« 1Y tv V it 1I1 I t i i t u Mt* iv^inx tw n y in j.iu iiuiivitj."; y*nJritiu<£ ‘rfinj •puuvi itfxmVvH Wvu ytuuiik it a m h 4. j i t ••'pryjrfr>« yt 11 s t “ t “ J j« « t t HtttiiYtJVMliilVu tj.)a.>y ' VwymnyLH.y tii.J.11': nJritt* Aij.r*)|xJM m uuoitlY yi.ii2iii HjlliVll'Ju • M.I.'^^StJHU.I.ll.t y«yiiMiiiiH •»jyr)u!.... nitirY m .yiiiiiiiwivw q.vTtm i « r j n i t i 3 jiiiiruvuis-.i 1u 1r l j .11 yiiu.jnv’ yuil«H«.tytini|tuM • rifiVji’iuutY Y . - • * 1 ( ' I n 1 'xtujvaint} tituiutJtlV ’ H i n t fjvu *\Stv* irvniu ^>4*4 ru if ~ • . ivVJ 'rg p f.n m i ytvmiJlUU ynrcrtiiuj y j 9.9(9111 y»iyv»yjr.iruM n 11 • \t r j.i9 » •' t.iMVtj.JIk j .j .vjhjh »x t.iH ltii.ird jzrt'i • jritt'A^‘yiil*-f» i Jo Airiy .J.«>«Vvsm’n .\ttiiii ijMttjrjrJtu luitiij.rtpt '.m vPYMa^vn ii>iirv^irMuirrHiw rj. uii.i. rv.ii ili'in u , i t nr m i9ii 1: jy« • tjHyujyJYuvJ/ivi’w m i i u v y . , ilixrJ • Atinriiiyyit.yyuyj.mna mvivru rii«j.ilusuiuuuv;ic}>»U ty « - r.(irv n u Y u x f l i n ) • rliyy rr* . 5V ' * | J 'V»iiU9VV)j4* ( A 9 O T I O J ) I8E# XdlHOSQNVW OIAVTS HVaNVlIH xixxx axvid u u a r » W jw r^ugvj.Y w -~tw}wrtjvu; 4 j >j.jYio3^aiJ-^MXoirv9*ui>}Ni^‘ ' i > n d w > i » V v o99oJv*J-mH/nA»3M ‘tJjQVXwOiwmvu'A^Ai ‘ J| Av/VMm^fiMMotJipiryj^rMv * vg.uusHtfiint'} * nrVii^W«VW.M AiV-UwuT mi w n ^ a • r>ip I )swh frWAvjwx.u.jiiiyli'jJiu j ' w' ittr&Hnsrlr*iivrkinu * • O 3k»0 i !T©9 •V 3^-313 H • ^aiQimf.S»«>V)H- wpJuAvV'vipgisjyoi • :: . i „ w j """■’' ^ . * t I ’•* Jkll'K^yjM ' ’ n/)H1J->iVJ93inm [ • nfWoppvoigHvjJig mi r u w mian J joh i&uwv^xcaiTnYi\u» • Kiiii'ri2ig • igHXV^ c o ju^foan J7J9VJW J ’*»h j u h 9j m 4 M ^ r » ) > u f n • tonv'r'ib?? 1* ^Vi^o^h^ApiIi • »)Vmi.hj.kb»^1 9uJ\9n39iv»jri^lQ23gHij.3^.gpuHirv^Hirn9A.A»v; • •■• -'■ ■ >.: ~7.? (JZ OTXOi) 888# IdlHOSflNVW 0IAV1S HVQNVHH TX aivid 294 PLATE XLI HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #389 (Folio 252r) "-'T.Hnh1t,6y . «f f nc^HJMJimcf. njBAzyuKy^*^^ -*K3}.r«ur4 • i( rs € ay Vo n p* a^KihAAz^k m t ft t a o ^ /**W #K QkZ^JIftyi^ t«W «v. :<^0tK -iTo-(juif«l/5 ByffkjA*7ff44aif nj«-Tas^*i:^i.f ^n*rtU4^jJK*A‘T wrutK^k :/cX^niiS-.‘^fiAjiiH'wypuif»Y*V*•. uiib6a^K^»W<«hm • " • ■ C.OAHA4fci:l C’^tvc m H j ^ 4 - . •«- -n P H Ki~k Ul A rtTTt I lt«£iO M i.'■• n ->ihkt-ro*i«ici • S’o'ro^fuCO«AA«^i'yin-pj?KaYt|i.£«jjff^u(r •*V. :*rVt; jiw:5S^R .MOT* PLATE XLII HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #390 (Folio lr) 1 a u r . r<3. £n i t e r s k £ jz -y a kjs. • * / ’ *“ * A" T.in.irfiitACGa. OJK/LlT.i(J:i-7i^AfttCCH- Ii( *:a .e .r$-i:r. ^CE vKXUKL<|> Hn^di ui TAfifjH y^«i^xnHrjH;-ci€r^(tK£jtifff ^H. ZAayAHtUjtt • T/rem«^ctAiL«jptKi MfCiH • A6C erA^iMoy" XAiocIjii«r HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #392 (Folio 2r) 7IAT£ 60 N LI flyM/./OM'TrtCf UtT6\fTh\AA:cahl ftp bEHfOEb/_MK\/LIK , s-rapf nfp.i.cb . ici.rftyoLH'Hrz/iCifpbe'JTW /taycamULMVt - p^7 km> ay e_o cL&'icT’L. o rusa ah \M> j^ iu ty ru AAfT.Hrt rpT&Yaartflrt . oni^MHMfirtiju * I - / " •• sr*** ayytiHtiAjU', HhjL.itycAbiuiJ'rHtt aycpa HKACl . J.A'Tp'kzbbMLl C h'TJi'«f>H/{/£f HEbAf ; HCAMLiH^t icac«ayTHC{ftEcLb .• rtM'c^rartff iT.IICdTu r^ff/dFTTbA^WflCTb H AjM A IS.A LU W K,, : MK47t\'f S6A'i^t1h HnC'/AAb WBbC6yj!.by CbEH f A«i|/«A^4ICAi^ M/CACfE^Off|»AL|/AHJL|/M , p[nAAayKHT^ICfl HKMMtl, /U H 6 rfi>{ rUiUfl r AHTQ*tbKATijay Cftflrt MAA.flt'TbttbCfAMTH^ ZhZKXiTftl'Th . Htt l<47«{ O SAAK OBb CbTt • > * • #>> ,• . *» *“ . H H K ; M^rtA'CMA0yEu)MpA'fb«bTIi«|IW'T'4 Bbz«5.ay>;b . urAmtujccE* Hcnayc'TtTbiw • nAKooAa7nHBaj(jLb7nbbbC.b, TH^bHCB^Tb ’ A h CbjL^'ft^rt’TbDb^Aby^b ,' C«bj HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #422 (Folio 2r) • - <-v - — ' Y p“^r: • . I p ' -A 1 /r —oQ'~ 4 5 5 * I r.v .._•*?,*^ f,\ .- ot,i*n+ e t’icontHiirHiTp^ii, rAK y • • • - •.- r j s * . j y r • ..-^ vibiK.c-HA^ w . FttTAi rpajunpm j r . r. H JKili. icoAHO Ufa UHHX°UiyUOV : .. • J , v.' • •ty ,n ? A.JI a ’f T N 0 U A H £ 0 E f P ^ t T t A HfOAAfa . . - .: >>.f. 0 H A I T fa J fl A tTT&tA.&’faV. 5fa HK £ :. J * . • . . r. ‘>.*rr. ;:.. y--< .r.MTKK fiAAAAUA MICOAlACD^n^ft. /. !U UiTHOW HSmTSimi*;'1~ —• i ••■ _•« . . . , A n Afa . A ^ \_/- ftKOHfatH• ;'HCAIX •vfiy », v V ’rvvi^nvn • HVP>».M «»'*« T^.V .y'«/Jj) tv ^ACJMU>«}>CP>i V)Vm»J » / * jrjjjPBv? jm v u m v p u ) r.Bvw?»vvivw v»j 1 viVr. pVpuw w »»VM pu.' ■ Vib l B j U T rr wi M J.J fS' V-JHVIJjH S ' P v iuvjmuvmmvjh -j u m p r* * *•• M * . • * * " " - J. i H 0 » v I J 2 * j i u h W v u w JtuiLW .Jtrjru ■?*• viMUVuVf.OJ O • wv'iu.A'p^vjm nuv)\Vlr\fi e ■/' j>pjTU»vf2VjpJKrjupuM • wp>VHU»rn: if t , •—* • ^ 4 \ ^ , t. ' • ; ^ h i v < «ywi Vb.ukj TXTt^cyva. h 5 v t • . , ,) ••_• vt — v *■ r * t y; .M'vpoiix»TMiu7*i>HjV?) f^ w • wiu,jpw _ vdii'f * | •"V »uvv«^vipjJu» • fipguirjpjIjclJ^jui...] > h w u w n - n c r 7 hiuvbpJ^V| [ I ( | * y . < * *’ ^ ? • # ’* Vjrofw'Udu Q4 ijjjVpjv\y w itmwi jjv m A i/jph £'/* — .' *•' \ ' • - ' V !' '•• •. .••>-•;;•* • * «•;: • X - • f &U V ! / « •• * ': u i *:: v v v ‘sV?.' • ~ '• • r t - . ' •“•: ■•• . 1 Wt-fi * i ^W v vti V f j u * ? ^ >& T . & m. x (JT OTtOj) frSfr# IdlHOSnNVW 0IAV1S HVQNVHH ATX aivid 862 .t PLATE XLVI HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #473 (Folio 5r) . i'iy.iniA.ti«T«*in.i. ';jA/+.fniiii/MiTvw.rH. '• rTirin*.. L* ..AAKkTk. Mi-iiAiiAARArtraftkACoyK.i.ci/w nfiiyio . T't^/Vr\i M;pi|imt\»jiVij-/JiiMpH/)fi/i^AyoYiii- N ift* ^ l^:'pup,4A" • «»y'<*lu*HfCT^/y«YK/r>'in'# . AnniiM Ai. 1 1 ’r-*f. 0 pn-l-lt I-r-UI jL . fl^M/UKp’kAkM.UVtrNI * 'ii^AfiCANArc . r^ict/niiiKA'/TifHUjty iujlity, 1'rpayiik ^iKflwmin^MiyKAA . iiturNMCTif'rt«npA&i,CNAra. II rl.l IfAMAli N t Ylht . A ^ T ^ . Hpk&HK/M inA\A^,ayM^»v(Tir7t.i k t o . ' r AA^Ulf fTllti . M Uirfl^lLmH Mn4AAr4JUCHATlUl lipUR! KNHAJUyHNKJjktp'AlfHNTJCLf MAAAATRay. lllipil Atnp-fcxj.cTAi.nL(ipatfKA'fttNtirJajNHra . iirtA'it’TkAy i h t j i i i p ^ ta A N k i. /rfftA iy iiJiiK W A /n iH A ii . HtriAAi 'ipkfikuJtTirKAnjiAiSitANAri. M»vkM‘>npAijHmmi., « IR 'fc/lLIV t i h t t k A c /1A AM*»rt . R k iV u ill i. A fi#art - rt .A, - ■ - ‘ * I nACTHiieifcrtlt 18. iirtAcpijlKKoHAAk. ilNilRtT.UkTi s*iihiiujk . iin‘^k.ixfApi./RtHRkp«yi|*t. nacAAHSdtk N K V tyt’TklMrAlt . nflAIAxllRkA’k^j.lt/IMrftHRky Ak. t t.rt'roycam'n'irp’kjUNniifynitnuin . 't^usl Ht'rjy.t'up^lrtujf^pkAfiij/rtUAkTM. mvricnpoyift 1 J1UJA. j t a iti*j»y/hl'tkCTlnkCkJ . (|/n»|iK tu«^ ' n‘jtA*WNaM»y. RkiukrpAipiiNHMLitkntftjiiyp. g K U ^ h a k a m n u h HM.itjuiiflyijiaNMHrp’t^ i ^ k . npa p8yit4yiR«r«. tMJV’iKIKtpkRtflj'fcMMl-lHrLl PLATE XLVII HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #474 (Folio 2r) X 'rt^ ik t’TftftYM/vjia^'raEti'TKK . ijntaM «ar4 Mjia^Aj(iff»4 cilTHn^'SMflnaaHMMTjAMH^'Ii HBHHO&TUM • n'£flllijKfl£TAlt6 . W^rmdffdAKLjC oitiK. uunnram i ' CrtbiJtThJUjrct H^£ut-T*4IKHt'piflH’rk . n'rtc-r^tn^ tt^hftino.’undatLi c4n*aranaa«M M 'ffti^nrtdnearAU • • tTomerArtiy£m . <*»otj4M£^«AM'rrrt • • n 4^ s 4,fl-,'rMAX*t^ ’t,M'' ^ < " If-' 6 *£«^nj>ayAMT« . ituioijA ’= cLTtm wtAflaay unp-iEU 84-rH . rnitjifrnf iiw t nfMu>£kty C T & 4 » IJJU MA K J I ^ A ^ a X 6 0 . ; A f c ^ K k l A ^ ^ M A M t l B.H r^AjljfojitiiK ttyf CNKTAKTtt. itf-T& « A* v ,y i|v_aH £tiw jl^^H ia4^»uijfef<,M 4r4 fljrtaCAKM KM M&M'TtAMB .4M t . s ,»> tn'i^n K'v?PbJrtmmc £ ( hl^( hm" a K N iut^ 7--: 301 PLATE XLVIII HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #475 (Folio 6r) P^fWjK • ii ft ; h n * a*ft ft it ira h •:< 1® ! ...... - _...... • i“ .:5*gjSfc$ a h n v w $ ; ’Jh h two*XT.^cijj(* MH p s j A K, fLB a ® miri5Alflff B m« fojl J A VAVlj a tv Kji§*J! SLV*v'A j ... -f* • *?* • -•>. •• •• ii*r,~i : i ; v . i ' W X . v ; . V 7 ^ ‘ ; f • aOJLsduuuiuvpui aim Aoui hoik v t ■>/u jii -il'M ojisooji^ •ii)}>Jpu*} 3ui+mu'U)wI'V u ' ahuv irtJiu *j J' j > H M j^woo>i h ,Oj»A»op5JX»4^jvoVMeyi : ^MPOUi>v)UJM«»ui4 iM ui|> i4i 4 * > u Ju A o v ^ v v u t.' : * j i y h t w j i v UUimUov/.MKl ^MVVM • r .»V* •PV^I^IOvpVK ■Oiuuytfljan JJJTUyVjJu^WMv’JoUjN^Uilu yjocojAumju^V .-.ivvurniivjXeouyNaijJuijtu i4.a*fc Wuaowjouiu Jjo •^iiwJ5fXo^y«vy>va'i^o»ibjM •jijitu 'JJ'U'IK *4* * v * ‘ .. . - -. . , '',w *j* • yuinlsyjO •»}jm|u^i^ouj>vjui^V^,n»pij3M^uiouij^D(u*u ^W»#yUH>lV>B**“ lll,H,^_moUJ»PoyH)UiJK>(!H»S.'e>ir : MITJPlV wui^33>m huihkm>'3CV7^« anooovj' n v Z y v o i ^ d h V d d b J u ^Ju»)r»yiur>3A« I;WVm 'imkodo V-w j^ duj >■ -owilu i i/v atydyiiy^ «pMpiMjin^ni3M3Dtu*A;3H <£w»iuHyvrA-'awM A> j i o j • j ^ o y v 5 J^ mJM‘P»V^iuiidu V pocju B^uqiu^v^ujJjjVuijuiu Ik XtUI J^W ..i vynp^yv»*$»- irw+ i jVi^jluiaW^ajXpjijM9 7 r,*£^tf^**0,^ ° a^wof«»(!HW v>jhn j tJ^.s’~'^ypW*M**^*A#UJfcVM WH3«*Xo»io33VJ9rnynyvuqiu **■■■ T* » ’.../■/ *. . ...» |— ^ (J 2 ojioi) 9Afr# XdlHDSnNVN 0IAV1S HVdNVHH x n x axvid PLATE L HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #477 (Folio 2v) HnouAt-Aniitt (&'tT/wr/< KrviorconsMiiiaAwrt a a #3!? ctrftuif heh i .. . oyrt^ACflMb HC’T^OAAh AALKCAAt • Hi a M A U A t t U W f{, ^MOAAfty H«n0B,£A4MH»O . LHhABt-A rJToAAh . 8b(»^lOySV U*CKR^bnH«T« . C6't . BffclW* • Htr«MCtyit£AKAK*l^ r|H/BMYk(KU'cS Il^TM'tBAN .• H fiyHAWK}! «kr^*fc)<**M.k AAftttXAk . TTMyro •£bTC&. KT4Ml«yCAM^ ^nA'MYWct • KUTfKc*r«y n«KH PLATE LI HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #610 (Folio 13r) jw kcfcaiiun: •■flA'A.uJ ti e j Q-WktriiMtTitnnklaWW-sffV'TaS; 305 PLATE LII HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #618 (Folio 80r) V?. •fa®**- •- •af'jiTJfe*.*:- frtiftlRAKu). y rl'xi- Vr33i u . E’ARenfc rfl hi • v:. \ * i 1,1 iu . j p f {r ^ A n m * *«*’ r . * * . * •■ ■• _ 1 ^ | | c|Firh h HK/fvtrilc tam ^ ^ K A a iif i’cariHTA n ggJ^'iptyuiiH V H |I M fl fTNfiAIH.^Atro i^TjJAniAHii^Mj^nor. P ^MHAOtTHfif. fihtU]f ^k^iun^jAT&iytuino, nfthtuJkrAAthtjiQAH f;'J .* * » v .; • , /<*. - 6ft, . •• 306 PLATE LIII HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #644 (Folio lr) i k j O i m u i k h H f A' C B J I I B t t l H H Iji t H r A w ljl. t * C T W : V j g j i i ct t i k {'h fj s t h iu i.« h s t « t u m i h b i i| | ic s ’i a e k d " i KA IH »..K»Y • ndVf ndBIA’C i^ath.V f^nwo*HiPHB>e u h z j * h i^ k b h * w w y - ♦ c lyrAU tttVU Y^ICB :J*fAfMd^Hn^tferim ti'Vtcn'mi* CAABity^ujiAHtKA *•§& /££•'■' -H pffrj^A * JUltl<^H.*mfH*J*» 1B»HM*tHHIAWLH4r X ^ . . i r l f ~ £ T ’■ ^ Kid^^AJlHM*£ff4tJTB0JlHATi*tABKl»2it’rfcUJKHM*V . «TA *•' iS . ■»-■**■ - V ■'.- V i fl ■•' * ^ ■’* ■; „ -• • • *••'y.*.*:*•..’>* — 307 PLATE LIV HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #646 (Folio lr) C( * Tn»r»«It.K AA ft\. £~iro £ n KAjiLirA •» « •• •• • - tro£A |Mitu*&u*cT S^»l SiS.V-'^.T “. i:J..* ■ s s k s : ' M h & t 308 PLATE LV HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #760/1 (Folio lr) (*< NC««<4Hvf3Mit\ti>€ icm0 " 0 * Z^Y * aa/ : TTII'AA v • Hnar*NM ir<( CA j r u m b a a h m m / £ C t h a « A A g y t m y tj jfepyi^oy m jn-nnmw • rz(ic« 6 i t f i m f t W <^rii*1 MAAItH^H • B m A ( Ml f O H M k rij^rt««nv2^|ac H m * u j wrt** t c Mb 14 309 PLATE LVI HILANDAR SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT #760/V (Folio lr) hdMh-*- * £!. IfXh- . -rfSi - • .. ... ■ a' >■ 5' *»-t *i4tu £ «fcv u< .abut* mM-H* V < /<**«* s s l . oTi- *)KUi .Mi** O £ ‘£>^p«*Wjr* t^H O j it*tut h 4>7Utfi* jpjpKfti ^HT^ha*r^mKjiiicfplsfK-fffrrt'tue r» ** Of ffcrfl Sttai uij it6*%JeHH*UH n n( t itvkib&fili* *K AttfBH'Mimfnv rT _v=?r-> -Utci?f±J nrnt » s : : ; a . ; .< - ^ i : t A '•#: •i". hi^.sXjnKS?%