Nenad Makuljević

МАРГИНАЛИЯ MARGINALIA
Sanja Pajić
Rossitsa Gicheva-Meimari
Marina Koleva
Rosa d’Amico

Изкуствоlgaедски четения 2018

Ciprian Firea
Georgi Parpulov
Ljiljana Stošić

МАРГИНАЛИЯ Emma Maayan Fanar

Lyuben Domozetski
Svetlana Pejić
съставители Иванка Гергова и Maria Kolusheva
Елисавета Мусакова Margarita Kujumdzhieva
Vanya Sapundzhieva
Еdited by
Todor Enchev
Ivanka Gergova and Elissaveta Moussakova
Constantin I. Ciobanu

MARGINALIA
Aleksandra Kućeković
Jehona Spahiu
На корицата: Огнената река, църква „Св. Георги“ в ISSN 1313-2342 ISBN 978-954-8594-75-2
Ivanka Gergova
Баняни (фотография: Йехона Спахиу), детайл
Marko Ž. Katić
On the cover: The Fiery River, Church of St George in
Banjani (photo: Jehona Spahiu), detail 9 771313 234000 9 789548 594752
Anastasia Keshman W.

I • 2018 Darina Boykina

Lyubomir Mikov
Anka Stoilova
Ioannis Vitaliotis
Maya Zaharieva
Viktorija Popоvska-Korobar
Ljiljana Ševo
Mariela Stoykova
Angel Nikolov
Barbara Crostini
Elissaveta Moussakova
Jovana Stanojlović
Rumyana Decheva
 Изкуствоведски четения 2018
МАРГИНАЛИЯ

MARGINALIA
Art Readings 2018

Jerusalimia (detail), 1786, Church of St Prophet

Elias, Busovača (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
(photo: Mаrko Katić)
Ерусалимия (детайл), 1786 г., църква „Св.
пророк Илия“, Бусовача (Босна и Херцеговина)
(фотография: Марко Катич)
ИЗКУСТВОВЕДСКИ ЧЕТЕНИЯ
Тематичен рецензиран годишник за изкуствознание в два тома

ART READINGS
Thematic Peer-reviewed Annual in Art Studies, Volumes I–II

Международна редакционна колегия

International Advisory Board

Andrea Babuin (Italy)

Konstantinos Giakoumis (Albania)
Nenad Makulijević (Serbia)
Vincent Debiais (France)

Редактори от ИИИзк
In-house Editorial Board
Ivanka Gergova
Emmanuel Moutafov

Съставители
Edited by
Ivanka Gergova
Elissaveta Moussakova

Publisher
Institute of Art Studies
21 Krakra Str.
1504 Sofia
Bulgaria

www.artstudies.bg

© Институт за изследване на изкуствата, БАН, 2019

© Institute of Art Studies, BAS, 2019
 ИЗКУСТВОВЕДСКИ ЧЕТЕНИЯ
Тематичен рецензиран годишник за изкуствознание в два тома
2018.I. - Старо изкуство

МАРГИНАЛИЯ

MARGINALIA

ART READINGS
Thematic Peer-reviewed Annual in Art Studies, Volumes I–II
2018.I. Old Art

съставители
Иванка Гергова
Елисавета Мусакова

edited by
Ivanka Gergova
Elissavetа Moussakova

София 2019
 A Forgotten Manuscript from the
Slavonic Collection
in the Russian National Library
Elissaveta Moussakova1

Abstract. Until recently the Gospel manuscript from the Russian National Library
in St Petersburg, MS Q.п.І.3, now dated to the mid-14th century, was almost not
known. It was found that its teratological headpiece on f. 85r is similar to a head-
piece in the Four Gospels NBKM 1356 of about the same period. The compositions,
though stemming from a common prototype, differ in their details. Being found in
manuscripts of obviously different origin, they bring forth a number of issues such
as the attribution of the two South Slavonic Tetraevangelia, their interdependence
and relations with manuscripts and centres where the model patterns were used
and copied in three 17th-century illuminated Gospels.
Key words: codex, Tetraevangelion, Slavonic, illumination, teratological orna-
ment, Mount Athos, Ohrid

Preliminary notes
Until recently, the Cyrillic Tetraevangelion from the Russian Natio­nal
Library (RNB) in St Petersburg, MS Q.п.І.3, was almost unknown. A
few years ago I found several slides in the photographic archive at
the Manuscripts and Old Printed Books Department in the National
Library in Sofia. One of them reproduced a headpiece, occurring in
other manuscripts2. Preliminary enquires revealed the source, a Gos-

1  Dr Elissaveta Moussakova, an art historian, and Professor at the Institute of Art Studies. She teaches
courses at the National Academy of Art and at St Kliment Ohridski University in Sofia, and works on
Slavonic and Byzantine manuscript illumination, and on Cyrillic palaeography and codicology.
2  Musakova 2006: 45–53; Musakova 2018. The archive was left from the photographer Nikolai
Kulev.

479
Marginalia
 pel book, meant to enter the catalogue of Bulgarian manuscripts in
the St Petersburg Library but eventually neglected3. Zhanna Levshi-
na and Anatoliy Turilov, to both of whom I express my gratitude
for the additional information, confirmed that cataloguers, for no ap-
parent reasons, have missed the item more than once. In this way,
the only short description of the new witness, which disturbed an
already built stemma, was given in Evgeniya Granstrem’s catalogue,
where she specified the Bulgarian origin of the manuscript and its
15th-century date4. Turilov’s correction in favour of the mid-14th cen-
tury sustained my own initial guess. In the meantime the Gospels
from Pyotr Frolov’s collection attracted Russian colleagues’attention5.
Also, it turned out that the manuscript was registered in a catalogue
of Macedonian manuscripts6. Thus shortly before the Art Readings
Conference 2018 the codex had lost its status of a forgotten or mar-
ginal object of research. However, its illumination remained poorly
explored, so it will be represented in more detail and with an empha-
sis on the particular headpiece.
Illumination
In the rectangular headpiece at the beginning of Matthew (f. 4r) two
medallions shaped by vegetal stems are drawn (Fig. 1), each contain-
ing a four-legged animal, a winged one on the left and a dog-like one
on the right. The pattern, rare in the manuscript illumination, was
exploited by and large in the so-called applied arts in Byzantium, me-
diaeval Bulgaria and the Near East7. A square headpiece of a Byzan-
tine type, with an inner quatrefoil opening for the title, precedes the
Evangelion of Mark on f. 53r (Fig. 2). Elongated, pointed palmettes,
painted in blue with white contours on red background fill in the
space between the inner and outer frames. Two palmette buds on
long stems flank the headpiece, while two small buds are set at the
upper corners. Between them there is a red, three-bar cross, accompa-
nied by the inscription IC XC NIKA. Luke’s Evangelion (f. 85r) opens
with a headpiece, occupying most of the page and composed of a

3  Hristova et al. 2009.

4  Granstrem 1953: 85.
5  Levshina 2018 (forthcoming); if already published, the article is not available to me.
6  Despodova 2003: 150–153 (with reproductions of f. 85r and f. 4r), repeating most of Granstrem’s
data.
7  For example, a glaze-painted ceramic jug from Preslav (Bulgaria), dated 9th–10th century, Totev
1994: 221, ill. 4a,b or a 12th-century silver lid, Bank 1977: 89, No. 554.

480
Fig. 1. Headpiece and initial at Matthew, RNB Q.п.I.3, mid-14th century (?), f. 1v–2r (photo:
courtesy of the Russian National Library)
Фиг. 1. Заставка и инициал пред Евангелието от Матей, РНБ Q.п.I.3, средата на
ХІV в. (?), л. 1б–2а (фотография: с любезното разрешение на Руската национална
библиотека)

monstruous animal couple of the so called ‘heraldic’ type. Turned

back to back, with joining tails, the creatures are entangled by two
snakes – having snake/dragon heads at each end of the bodies – and
vegetal stems with palmette endings (Fig. 3). Such decoration, also
applied to two of the initials (Fig. 1, 4), is referred to as teratological
ornament or style in the literature8. An interlaced cross is set in the
upper part of the composition, flanked by two of the dragon/snake
heads. A П-shaped headpiece (f. 137r) of intersecting and intertwin-
ing segments of circles, outlined with a compass, marks John’s Gos-
pel (Fig. 4). The white stems project on alternating blue and ocher
fillings. Pointed five-leaf palmettes at the corners, as well as at the
upper part of the headpiece complete its embellishment. This hetero­
geneous ornamental content is supplemented by bands of differing

8  The term was coined by Feodor Buslaev from τέρας  (Greek: monster, marvel), see references
in Shchepkina 1974: 219–220, also in Dzhurova 1997: 179–167.

481
Marginalia
 Fig. 2. Headpiece and initial at Mark, RNB Q.п.I.3, f. 53r (photo: courtesy of the Russian
National Library)
Фиг. 2. Заставка и инициал пред Евангелието от Марко, РНБ Q.п.I.3, л. 53а
(фотография: с любезното разрешение на Руската национална библиотека)

Fig. 3. Headpiece and initial at Luke, RNB Q.п.I.3, f. 85r (photo: courtesy of the Russian
National Library)
Фиг. 3. Заставка и инициал пред Евангелието от Лука, РНБ Q.п.I.3, л. 85а (фотография:
с любезното разрешение на Руската национална библиотека)

types at the beginnings of the Theophylactos of Ohrid’s prefaces, the

Synaxarion and the Menologion9.
Even a cursory glance reveals the striking resemblance of the ‘he-
raldic’ composition with that in the Gospels from the Bulgarian Na-
tional Library, MS NBKM 1356 (Fig. 5)10, at Matthew’s Gospel (f. 6r).
Another common feature is the graphical manner of rendering the
feathers and scales on the animal bodies. However, besides the more
refined style in NBKM 1356, further differences between the head-
pieces, such as the number, arrangement and shape of the palmette

9  On ff. 51r, 83r, 173v, 176v (the beginning of the Preface to Matthew is missing). I refer to the
short descriptions in Levshina 2018, see note 5.
10  See note 2. Description of the manuscript in Hristova, Karadzhova, Vutova 1996: 15–18.

482
Fig. 4. Headpiece and initial at John, RNB Q.п.I.3, f. 137r (photo: courtesy of the Russian
National Library)
Фиг. 4. Заставка и инициал пред Евангелието от Йоан, РНБ Q.п.I.3, л. 137а
(фотография: с любезното разрешение на Руската национална библиотека)

endings or the types and forms of the crosses surmounting the head-
pieces could be pointed out. As to the technique and colour schemes,
the densely laid blue, green, red and ocher11 paints in MS NBKM 1356
contrast the pale blue, red and ocher washes in MS RNB Q.п.І.3. The
most pronounced though are the formal differences of the monsters’
heads. Six altogether, they are dog-like in NBKM 1356 which, com-
bined with the animal fore legs and birds’ wings and tails, makes
plausible the identification of the monster as Senmurv12. On the con-
trary, by supplying the fantastic birds with snake/dragon heads,
the scribe (or the artist) of the Petersburg Gospels kept to the South
Slavonic bestiary, in which the motif is particularly cherished13.

11  Used, as in other manuscripts, as substitute for gold paint.

12  Musakova 2018, and not gryphons, as in Musakova 2006: 50. The identification of the poly-
morphic creature in the literary sources and art is fairly ambiguous, see Trever 1937; Harper 1961;
Compareti 2006.
13  See Fokas 2011; Moussakova 2016.

483
Marginalia
 Fig. 5. Headpiece and initial at Matthew, NBKM 1356, ca. 1320s–1350s, f. 6r (photo: Ivo
Hadzhimishev)
Фиг. 5. Заставка и инициал пред Евангелието от Матей, НБКМ 1356, ок. 20-те – 50-те г. на
ХІV в. (фотография: Иво Хаджимишев)

Fig. 6. Teratological headpiece, the Chilandar Hexaemeron, . GIM 345, 1263 A.D., f. 7r
Фиг. 6. Тератологична заставка, Хилендарски Шестоднев, ГИМ 345, 1263 г., л. 7a

Typology
The ‘heraldic’ animals have been discussed time and again in re-
gard with the origin, development and chronology of the South- and
East-Slavonic teratological ornament14. Luckily, in the headpiece at
Matthew in an early 13th-century, provincial Byzantine Gospels Axi­
niya Dzhurova15 detected a full analogue for the image in the late
13th-century Radomir Psalter16, another representative of the ‘heral-
dic’ type. Hence she raised the hypothesis that the depiction in the
Greek codex, or a similar one, gave birth to the Slavonic teratologi-
cal decorations and saw in the prototype a standard model pattern,
adopted by Greek and Slav scribes. It is possible now to differen-

14  To quote only Shchepkin 1906: 50, 75–76; Shchepkina 1974: 221–224; Radojčić 1971; Bozhkov,
Vasiliev 1981: 297; Dzhurova 1994; Dzhurova 1995.
15  Dzhurova 1994; Dzhurova 1995. According to her, the monsters have canine heads, though
they could be taken as well for dragon ones.
16  Cod. Zogr. 59, Kodov, Raykov, Kozhuharov 1985: 27–20, plate CXIII.

484
tiate two sub-groups within the
‘heraldic’ group stemming from
the mo­del. The first one includes
the headpieces in the Radomir
Psalter and the Chilandar Hex-
aemeron (1263)17 (Fig. 6), in so far
as they repeat more faithfully the
overall pattern18: an ornamented
frame; setting of the monstruous
birds with crossed tails; a circle
at the centre, through which two
intertwined snakes run to the cou-
ple below; no vegetal elements in
the interlaces. Since the animal
heads in the Psalter are definitely
depicted as dragons’, it could be
assumed that the flying-dragon
motif19 was first adopted in this
headpiece, if the surviving Bul- Fig. 7. Teratological headpiece, Four Gospels,
Chil. 12, first half of the 14th century, f. 1r (after:
garian medieval manuscripts are Θησαυροὶ tοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους. Thessaloniki, 1997,
considered. 543)
Фиг. 7. Тератологична заставка,
Четириевангелие, Хил. 12, първа половина на
Important for the second sub- ХІV в., л. 1a (по: Θησαυροὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους.
group, comprising the headpieces Thessaloniki, 1997, 543)
in the Gospels Chilandar 1220 (Fig.
7), RNB Q.п.І.3 and NBKM 1356,
is the altered scheme from which the frame was removed, the ani­
mals’ torsos became connected with each other and a conspicuous,
vertical figure-of-eight knot, formed by the snakes, replaced the cir-
cle in the middle. In addition, a cross was set on top and the palmette
motifs appeared as endings of the interlacing stems.
With regard to the specifics of the monstruous couple though, the

17  Moscow, MS GIM 345. Copied in Chilandar Monastery by Theodore the Grammarian, nick-
named Spanos, see Radojčić 1971.
18  See Dzhurova 1994: 171.
19  For its genealogy, semantics and later use in the Slavonic illumination (from the 14th century
on) of the flying, but horned or crowned dragon, not typical for the earlier Byzantine and Slavo­
nic repertoire, see Dzhurova 2009.
20  Of the first half of the 14th century in Turilov, Moshkova 2016: 108; same in Bogdanović 1978/1:
57; see also Bogdanović 1978/2: plate 21.

485
Marginalia
 grouping begins to fall apart, since the canine type adopted for the
animal heads in NBKM 1356 echoes the couple in the Hexaemeron. At
the same time the best stylistic correspondent to the Sofia headpiece
happens to be the ‘heraldic’ headpiece at Matthew in the Gospels of
the Doheiariou Monastery, MS 42421. By the quality of script and illu-
mination, in which gold was applied, the book may be ranked as a de
luxe one. More than that, while the latter’s composition is somewhat
different from the examples referred to, the artistic work in both
manuscripts could be attributed to the same hand. When the snake/
dragon heads of the Petersburg Gospels are borne in mind, they bet-
ter correspond to those in the Radomir Psalter, while in the Byzan-
tine prototype and in MS Chilandar 12 the animal heads bear some
mixed characteristics. In spite of the huge reference literature on the
teratological ornament, the meaning imputed to the ‘heraldic’ terato-
logical pattern, which could explain its long-standing popularity was
not discussed, with one exception. Biljana Jovanović-Stipčević tried,
unconvincingly in my view, to relate the animals with the symbols of
the Evangelists22. As the required limits of the paper prevent a longer
discourse, I would only summarize that since the time of the ancient
civilizations and through the Christian art the mythological, poly-
morphic images of the Senmurv, the gryphon and the snake/dragon
have been interpreted in the context of notions about the primaeval
cosmic order, nature’s fertility and all-governing celestial royalty. It
is not by chance that the composite motif opens the history of crea-
tion in the manuscript of Theodore the Grammarian. By introducing
the cross in the composition, the aspect of the creatures as guardians
of the Tree of Life was activated, a motif common for the Byzantine
manuscripts and apt to apply to Matthew’s Gospel, beginning with
Christ’s genealogy.
Origin
Even though the two-jer and two-jus orthography of the Petersburg
Gospels was defined as Bulgarian, perhaps a hesitation about its
Wallachian or Moldavian origin, as suggested by Levshina, preven­

21  Moussakova 2006: 48. The animals are dogs with lion tails. For the manuscript see Pavlikianov
1999: 42–44, ill. on p. 45 (registered as Slavic 1, the same in Pavlikianov 2001: 302–303); Jovanović-
Stipčević 2001 (arguing its dating to the 60s of the 14th century and its Chilandar origin; she was
unfamiliar with the Sofia Gospel manuscript). See Turilov, Moshkova 2016: 108 for a mid- or
third-quarter of the 14th century dating.
22  Jovanović-Stipčević 2001: 248.

486
Fig. 8. Teratological headpiece, Four Gospels, TSIAI 18, first quarter of the 17th century, f. 139r
(photo: Ivan Dobromirov)
Фиг. 8. Тератологична заставка, Четириевангелие, ЦИАИ 18, първа четвърт на ХVІІ в., л.
139а (фотография: Иван Добромиров)

Fig. 9. Teratological headpiece, Four Gospels, TSIAI 30, 1615–1625 A.D., f. 7r (photo: courtesy
of the Church-Historical and Archival Institute at the Bulgarian Patriarchy)
Фиг. 9. Тератологична заставка, Четириевангелие, ЦИАИ 30, 1615–1625 г., л. 7а
(фотография: с любезното разрешение на Църковно-историческия и архивен институт
към Българската патриаршия)

ted its registration in the above-mentioned catalogue. As neither the

palaeographical nor the artistic evidence justify such a decision and
as the text version relates to one of the Athonite redactions, Levshi-
na addresses the manuscript as Bulgarian or Athonite-Bulgarian. In
Despodova’s catalogue23 the manuscript is recorded as Macedonian
on the evidence of the prevalent small jer and other orthographic fea-
tures. However, if a possible Ohrid origin would be speculated on,
no specific scribal practices there in this period have been established
by scholars24. Any attempt to identify the place of origin by the illu-

23  Despodova 2003: 150–153.

24  The only witness is the Bologna Psalter, copied in “the town of Ohrid, in the village named
Ravne” in 1230–1241 (circumstantial evidence), but the ‘heraldic’ couple is of a different type.
Serbian features could be expected in manuscripts from Chilandar as well as from the Ohrid
Archbishopric, since the latter became part of King Stefan Dušan’s state (1331–1355).

487
Marginalia
 mination or the handwriting fails because the Tetraevangelion stays
in isolation from the current trends, ‘issuing’ from the leading Bul-
garian and Serbian centres in the Balkan hinterland or in the Holy
Mountain. Similarly, the origin of the codex NBKM 1356 has been
assigned to either Ohrid or Chilandar Monastery25 without sufficient
data to build a decisive argument.
The illumination of the Petersburg codex leaves an impression of
choice made among diverse patterns, elaborated by certain artistic
skills, to which the perfection of script could be added. Such a task
is feasible in a big, though probably provincial, centre or workshop.
And yet, as already commented, the individual characteristics of the
teratological headpieces in the two Gospels significantly vary, though
favouring the idea of a shared but transformed pattern-mo­del. Noth-
ing, be it script, style or ornamental repertoire could support an attri-
bution of the two codices to the same atelier.
Late history
Three copies of the teratological pattern are known thus far, decora­
ting Gospel manuscripts, written in approximately the first decades
of the 17th century and supplied with the images of the Evangelists.
Before the appearance of the Petersburg headpiece, their model has
been seen in the Sofia codex26. Presently it must be affirmed that the
identical headpieces, preceding Luke’s Gospel in the codices NBKM
484 and TSIAI 18 (Fig. 8) of ca. 1620s, are copies of the Petersburg
pattern27. A simplified and slightly smaller replica of the pattern in
cod. 1356 occurs at Matthew’s Gospel in MS TSIAI 30, dated to 1615–
162528 (Fig. 9).
Assumptions about the origin of the codices TSIAI 18 and NBKM
484 were made in favour of the Etropole Calligraphic School or the
related Vratsa literary centre29, the first having no established time of
foundation, and the latter active between 1608 and the 20s of the cen-

25  Hristova, Karadzhova, Vutova 1996: 17 and Musakova 2006: 48–49, 51–52, respectively dating it
to the 20s of the 14th century and the 50s/60s of the century.
26  Musakova 2006: 53.
27  Bozhkov, Vasiliev 1981: 297–298 on the identical teratological headpieces in these manuscripts;
for the manuscripts see Musakova 2009.
28  Musakova 2006: ill. 14; Hristova, Musakova, Uzunova 2009: 124–126.
29  Musakova 2006: 49–50.

488
Fig. 10. Headpiece,
Festal Menaion,
NBKM 134, 16th
century, f. 164r
(photo: Elissaveta
Moussakova, personal
archive)
Фиг. 10. Заставка,
Празничен миней,
НБКМ 134, ХVІ в., л.
164а (фотография:
Елисавета Мусакова,
личен архив)

tury. Unfortunately, none of the manuscripts fully corresponds to the

main codicological characteristics claimed for either of these centres.
A note from 168330 informs about the price of the Petersburg Gospels
in bans, the currency of Wallachia and Moldavia at that time. All the
listed names hint, in my view, to commissioners of Bulgarian origin,
so it could be presumed that they had come from a settlement on one
of the banks of the Danube. But could the manuscript have been on
Romanian territory or in a mixed Bulgarian-Wallachian milieu some
forty years previously, when an anthivolon of the headpiece might
have been prepared or has been already in circulation? An answer,
by no means definite or precise, comes from the headpiece on f. 164r
(Fig. 10) in the insufficiently studied Festal Menaion of the 16th centu-
ry, assigned by the Serbian-Bulgarian redaction of its language to the
Wallachian or Wallachian-Moldavian literary tradition31. The head-
piece, iterating in many respects that at Matthew in the Petersburg
Gospels, provides the looked-for, even if circumstantial, evidence
that between the 16th and late 17th century the latter has not left the
suggested area.
Witnessing such a connection would conform to a previous state-

30  On f. 1v: the son of a certain priest Dobri sold it to a group of people, Granstrem 1953: 85.
31  MS NBKM 134, Tsonev 1910: 97. For the text, classified as “the Wallachian-Moldavian redac-
tion” of the Tarnovo version of the Service of St Parasceve of Epibatae, see Stankova, s.d. About
Serbian lingual influence in manuscripts, written in Wallachia in the 16th century see Bilyarski,
Tsibranska 2015: 110. A late note witnesses a purchase in 1622 for Lesidren Village (Bulgaria) near
Lovech, a literary center in the 16th and the 17th century.

489
Marginalia
 ment of the Wallachian-Moldavian features of the Etropole scribal
practice32 – which means a network of contacts at first place – but it
does not answer the questions where exactly the codices 18 and 484
were written, how to explain their complicated relations with other
manuscripts33 or whether the common headpiece was copied from
the Petersburg Gospels or from an already circulating anthivolon.
Conclusions and queries
Amongst the manuscripts interrelated by the ‘heraldic’ headpieces,
the Petersburg pattern assumes the important position of a mediator
in transmitting an artistic idiom through the centuries. No matter of
the blank spots in mapping the books referred to, the thesis about
the intentional usage of old patterns in the newly organized seven-
teenth-century scribal centres34 is confirmed on a broadened basis.
Especially valuable for the elucidation of the literary processes in the
Ottoman period is bringing to the fore of the issues of Wallachian or
Moldavian agency in late Bulgarian manuscript making by the testi-
mony of ‘living’ documents. And last, but not least, the 17th-century
manuscripts prove that an ornament, utilized in the 14th century for
representative Gospel manuscripts was comprehended the same way
by a new generation of commissioners.
The crucial question of where the codex RNB Q.п.I.3 was written en-
tails many others. Must we search for a common centre (Ohrid or
Chilandar?) which released the 14th-century ‘heraldic’ version/s, or
should we think instead of different points of departure? If the trans-
mission was through the circulation of ready-to-hand standard pat-
terns, did it happen in centres with close contacts or not? Should the
idea of a direct consultation with the older manuscripts be complete-
ly rejected in favour of the anthivola when it comes to minor details,
shared by the model and the copy? May we say that the composition,
transformed and moved to the Gospel of Luke in the Petersburg co-
dex means a misunderstanding of the model as shown in the codex
1356 and respectively, its (relatively later?) adoption in a provincial
centre? Or are we dealing with a contemporary but consciously ar-
chaizing trend preserved in the late copies, too? Does the evidence
then of the late copies involves a question of institutionally main-

32  Raykov 1972.

33  On the subject see Musakova 2009.
34  See Kotseva 1976b: 69–70; Kotseva 1976a: 34.

490
tained relations with particular old centres, supplying particular new
ones with distinctive patterns? Considering the quality of illumina-
tion in the mentioned 14th-century codices, they might have had more
distinguished (and solvent) customers, but do their commission casts
light on a social status, or on personal preferences? The list of ques-
tions still remains longer than that of answers.

Abbreviations
GIM: Gosudarstvennyi istoricheskiy muzey (State Historical Museum), Moscow
NBKM: Narodna biblioteka Sv. sv. Kiril i Metodiy (SS Cyril and Methodius Na-
tional Library), Sofia
TSIAI: Tsarkovno-istoricheski i archiven institut kam Balgarskata patriarshiya
(Church-historical and Archival Institute at the Bulgarian Patriarchy), Sofia

491
Marginalia
 Bibliography

Bank 1977: Искусство Византии в собраниях СССР. Каталог выставки. 2 (сост.

Алиса Банк, Марина Бессонова) [Iskusstvo Vizantii v sobraniyakh SSSR. Kata-
log vystavki. 2 (eds. Alisa Bank, Marina Bessonova)]. Moscow.

Bilyarski, Tsibranska 2015: Bilyarski, Ivan, Mariana Tsibranska. Славянски ръкопис

636 (BAR Ms. Sl. 636, XVI в.) от библиотеката на Румънската академия в
Букурещ [Slavyanski rakopis 636 (BAR Ms. Sl. 636, XVI v.) ot bibliotekata na Ru-
manskata akademiya v Bukuresht]. – Archeographical Papers (= Mélanges archéo-
graphiques), No. 37, 107–151.

Bogdanović 1978, 1/2: Bogdanović, Dimitrije, Dejan Medaković. Каталог ћирилских

рукописа манастира Хиландара. Старе штампане књиге манастира
Хиландара. Т. 1. Каталог; Т. 2. Палеографски албум [Katalog čirilskih rukopisa
manastira Hilandara. Stare štampane knjige manastira Hilandara. T. 1. Katalog; T.
2. Paleografski album]. Belgrade.

Bozhkov, Vasiliev 1981: Bozhkov, Atanas, Asen Vasiliev. Художественото наследство на

манастира „Зограф“ [Hudozhestvenoto nasledstvo na manastira “Zograf”]. Sofia.

Compareti 2006: Compareti, Matteo. The So-Called Senmurv in Iranian Art: A Recon-
sideration of an Old Theory. In: Loquentes linguis. Studi linguistici e orientali in
onore di Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti (eds. Pier Giorgio Borbone, Alessandro Men-
gozzi, Mauro Tosco). Wiesbaden, 185–200.

Despodova 2003: Despodova, Vangelija. Македонски средновековни ракописи ІІ.

[Makedonski srednovekovni rakopisi II]. Prilep – Skopje.

Dzhurova 1994: Dzhurova, A. Още веднъж за образците на славянската

тератология (Евангелие Сава 248 от Гръцката патриаршия в Ерусалим и
Радомировия псалтир) [Oshte vednazh za obraztsite na slavyanskata teratologi-
ya (Evangelie Sava 248 ot Gratsckata patriarshiya v Erusalim i Radomiroviya
psaltir)]. – Старобългарска литература [Starobalgarska literatura], No. 28–29,
166–175.

Dzhurova 1995: Dzhurova, Axiniya. Към въпроса за славянската тератология

(Cod. Gr. Sava 248 от Гръцката патриаршия в Ерусалим и Радомировия
псалтир) [Kam vaprosa za slavyanskata teratologiya (Cod. Gr. Sava 248 ot
Gratskata patriarshiya v Erusalim i Radomiroviya psaltir)]. – Mélanges archéo-
graphiques, No. 17, 19–46.

Dzhurova 1997: Dzhurova, Axiniya. Въведение в славянската кодикология.

Византийският кодекс и рецепцията му сред славяните [Vavedenie v sla­
vyanskata kodikologiya. Vizantiyskiyat kodeks i retseptsiyata mu sred slavyan-
ite]. Sofia.

Dzhurova 2009: Dzhurova, Axiniya. Реинтерпретация на крилатата змия (дракон)

в християнската традиция (По повод украсата на Дивошевото евангелие)
[Reinterpretatsiya na krilatata zmiya (drakon) v hristiyanskata traditsiya (Po
povod ukrasata na Divoshevoto evangelie)]. – Зборник радова Византолошког
института [Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta], No. 46, 265–279 + figs.

492
Fokas 2011: Fokas, Daniel. Тератологичният орнамент в българската ръкописна
книга от ХVІ–ХVІІ век. Една теза [Teratologichniyat ornament v balgarska-
ta rakopisna kniga ot XVI–XVII vek. Edna teza]. In: Етрополската книжовна
школа и българският ХVІІ век (съст. Елисавета Мусакова, Елена Узунова)
[Etropolskata knizhovna shkola i balgarskiyat XVII vek (eds. Elisaveta Musakova,
Elena Uzunova)]. Sofia, 297–304.

Granstrem 1953: Granstrem, Evgeniya. Описание русских и славянских

пергаменных рукописей. Рукописи русские, болгарские, молдовлахийские,
сербские [Opisanie russkikh i slavyanskikh pergamennykh rukopisey. Rukopisi
russkie, bolgarskie, moldovlakhiyskie, serbskie]. Leningrad.

Gjuzelev 2014: Gjuzelev, Vasil. Съчинения в 5 тома. Т. 4. Училища, скриптории,

библиотеки и знания в България през ХІІІ–ХІV век [Sachineniya v 5 toma. T.
4. Uchilishta, skriptorii, biblioteki i znaniya v Balgariya prez XIII–XIV vek]. Sofia.

Harper 1961: Harper, Prudence O. The Senmurv. – The Metropolitan Museum

of Art Bulletin, New Series, vol. 20, No. 3, 95–101 (http://www.jstor.org/sta-
ble/3257932?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3Af7d89fcd1729087407e03d0f0b-
34cf25&seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents, accessed 10.03.2018).

Hristova, Karadzhova, Vutova 1996: Hristova, Boriana, Darinka Karadzhova, Nina Vu-
tova. Опис на славянските ръкописи в Софийската народна библиотека [Opis
na slavyanskite rakopisi v Sofiyskata narodna biblioteka]. Т. 5. Sofia.

Hristova, Musakova, Uzunova 2009: Hristova, Boryana, Elisaveta Musakova, Elena

Uzunova. Опис на славянските ръкописи в Църковно-историческия и архивен
институт – София. Т. 1. Библейски книги [Opis na slavyanskite rakopisi v
Tsarkovno-istoricheskiya i arhiven institut – Sofiya. T. 1. Bibleyski knigi]. Sofia.

Hristova et al. 2009: Hristova, Boriana, Vyacheslav Zagrebin, Genadiy Enin, Ele-
na Shvarts. Славянские рукописи болгарского происхождения в Российской
национальной библиотеке – Санкт-Петербург [Slavyanskie rukopisi bolgar-
skogo proiskhozhdeniya v Rossiyskoy natsional’noy biblioteke – Sankt-Peter-
burg]. Sofia.

Jovanović-Stipčević 2001: Jovanović-Stipčević, Biljana. Непознато српско четворо-

jеванђеље из Дохиjара броj 424 [Nepoznato srpsko četvorojevanđelje iz Dohiara
broj 424]. In: Словенско средњовековно наслеђе (ур. Зорица Витић, Томислав
Jовановић, Ирена Шпадиjер) [Slovensko srednjovekovno nasleđe (eds. Zorica
Vitić, Tomislav Jovanović, Irena Špadijer)]. Belgrade, 239–253.

Kodov, Raykov, Kozhuharov 1985: Kodov, Hristo, Bozhidar Raykov, Stefan Kozhuharov.
Опис на славянските ръкописи в библиотеката на Зографския манастир в
Света гора [Opis na slavyanskite rakopisi v bibiotekata na Zografskiya manastir
v Sveta gora]. T. 1. Sofia.

Kotseva 1976a: Kotseva, Elena. Елементи на украсата в ръкописната книга [El-

ementi na ukrasata v rakopisnata kniga]. – Изкуство [Izkustvo], No. 10, 30–38.

Kotseva 1976b: Kotseva, Elena. Украсата на българските ръкописи през ХV–ХVІІ век
[Ukrasta na balgarskite rakopisi prez XV–XVII vek]. In: Традиция и нови черти в
българското изкуство [Traditsiya i novi cherti v balgarskoto izkustvo]. Sofia, 68–80.

493
Marginalia
 Levshina 2018: Levshina, Zhanna. Греческая и южнославянская части Собрания
П. К. Фролова [Grecheskaya i yuzhnoslavyanskaya chasti Sobraniya P. K. Frolo-
va]. In: Колекции рукописных книг в современном мире: хранение и изучение
(сост. Жанна В. Левшина). Санкт Петербург [Kolektsii rukopisnykh knig v
sovremennom mire: khranenie i izuchenie (ed. Zhanna V. Levshina)]. Sankt Pe-
tersburg, 2018 (forthcoming).

Musakova 2006: Musakova, Elisaveta. Ръкописи от Охрид в Софийската народна

библиотека (Украсени гръцки и славянски ръкописи от ХІ–ХІV в.) [Rakopisi
ot Ohrid v Sofiyskata narodna biblioteka (Ukraseni gratski i slavyanski rakopisi ot
XI–XIV v.)]. – Зборник. Нова сериja. Средновековна уметност [Zbornik. Nova
serija. Srednovekovna umetnost], No. 5, 41–54.

Musakova 2009: Musakova, Elisaveta. Ръкопис 862 от Народната библиотека –

още едно евангелие с изчезнали миниатюри? [Rakopis 862 ot Narodnata bib-
lioteka – oshte edno evangelie s izcheznali miniatyuri?]. – Art Studies Quarterly,
No. 2, 35–41.

Moussakova 2016: Moussakova, Elissaveta. The Dragon/Snake Motif in the Illumi-

nated Old Glagolitic Manuscripts. – Slovo, No. 66, 139–163.

Musakova 2018: Musakova, Elisaveta. Четириевангелието НБКМ 1356 от

Националната библиотека [Chetirievangelieto NBKM 1356 ot Natsionalnata
biblioteka]. – Art Studies Quarterly, No. 2, 9–20.

Pavlikianov 1999: Pavlikianov, Cyril. The Slavic Lingual Presence in the Docheiariou
Monastery. – Palaeobulgarica, No. 4, 41–58.

Pavlikianov 2001: Pavlikianov, Cyril. A Short Catalogue of the Slavic Manuscripts

in the Dochieariou Monastery. – [Byzantina] Symmeikta, No. 14, 301–321, https://
ejournals.epublishing.ekt.gr/index.php/bz/article/download/3674/3533, (accessed
10.06.2018).

Radojčić 1971: Radojčić, Svetozar. Насловна застава Хиландарског Шестоднева

из 1263. године [Naslovna zastava Hilandarskog Šestodneva iz 1263. godine]. –
Хиландарски зборник [Hilandarski zbornik], No. 2, 69–92.

Raykov 1972: Raykov, Bozhidar. Етрополската калиграфско-художествена

школа през ХVІ–ХVІІ век [Etropolskata kaligrafsko-hudozhestvena shkola prez
XVI–XVII vek]. – Известия на Народната библиотека „Кирил и Методий“ [Iz-
vestiya na Narodnata biblioteka “Kiril i Metodiy”], No. 2 (18), 19–39.

Shchepkina 1974: Shchepkina, Marfa. Тератологический орнамент [Teratologi­

cheskiy ornament]. In: Древнерусское искусство. Рукописная книга
[Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo. Rukopisnaya kniga]. 2. Moscow, 219–239.

Stankova, s.d.: Stankova, Radoslava. Служби за св. Петка Търновска (Параскева

Епиватска) [Sluzhbi za sv. Petka Tarnovska (Paraskeva Epivatska)], http://scrip-
ta-bulgarica.eu/bg/articles/sluzhbi-za-sv-petka-trnovska-paraskeva-epivatska
(accessed 10.03.2018).

Totev 1994: Totev, Totyu. За една колекция рисувани белоглинени съдове от

Преслав [Za edna kolektsiya risuvani beloglineni sadove ot Preslav]. In: Сборник
в чест на Димитър Ангелов [Sbornik v chest na Dimitar Angelov]. Sofia, 214–222.

494
Trever 1937: Trever, Кamilla. Сэнмурв-паскудж, собака-птица [Sen-
murv-paskudzh, sobaka-ptitsa]. Leningrad.

Tsonev 1910: Tsonev, Benyo. Опис на ръкописите и старопечатните книги на

Народната библиотека в София [Opis na rakopisite i staropechatnite knigi na
Narodnata biblioteka v Sofiya]. Т. 1. Sofia.

Turilov, Moshkova 2016: Turilov, Anatoliy, Lyudmila Moshkova. Каталог славянских

рукописей афонских обителей. Под редакцией профессора А.-Э. Н. Тахиаоса
[Katalog slavyanskikh rukopisey afonskikh obiteley. Pod redaktsii professora A.-
E. N. Takhiaosa]. Belgrade.

495
Marginalia
 Един забравен ръкопис от славянската сбирка
на Руската национална библиотека

Елисавета Мусакова

Благодарение на няколко забравени слайда от фотографския ар-

хив на Отдела за ръкописи и старопечатни книги в българската
Национална библиотека, за мен наскоро се „откри“ евангелието
Q.п.І.3 от сбирката на Руската национална библиотека в Санкт
Петербург. Независимо че е регистрирано в каталога на Евгения
Гранстрем (1953) с датировка ХV в. и определено като българско,
то е останало извън няколко следващи каталога на славянски ръ-
кописи, включително описа на българските ръкописи от Петер-
бургската библиотека, публикуван през 2009 г. Месеци преди
Изкуствоведските четения през 2018 г. то се оказа във фокуса на
внимание на руските археографи и палеографи, които го датират
към средата на ХІV в., което беше и първоначалното ми впечатле-
ние. Тази статия разглежда слабо познатата украса на ръкописа с
акцент върху тератологичната заставка на л. 85а, тъй като тя по-
пада в кръга на проучвани евангелия, обединени именно от тази
заставка. Включването на нов член в семейството ръкописи, укра-
сени с т.нар. „хералдичен“ тератологичен мотив от двойка фантас-
тични животни, позволи да бъдат разграничени два много близ-
ки нейни варианта в ръкописи от ХІV в.: единият с изображение
на змия/летящ дракон, представен от евангелието в Петербург, а
другият с животнo, съвпадащo с описанията на сенмурва в изоб-
разителното изкуство, от по-рано изследваното евангелие НБКМ
1356. Бeше уточнено, че заставката от петербургския ръкопис е
копирана в два преписа на евангелието от първите десетилетия
на ХVІІ в., за които досега се смяташе, че копират заставката от
софийския ръкопис. По този начин в разпространението на един
вероятен общ прототип бяха очертани две основни линии, под-
държани в късните книжовни средища. Липсата обаче на доста-
тъчни данни за произхода на петербургското евангелие, а и на ос-
таналите представени тук евангелия, сложно обвързани не само с
него и помежду си, но и с други ръкописи, пораждат ред въпроси
към тяхната история, в която все още остават много бели полета.

496