Open Access

Vuk-Tadija Barbarić

• U radu se identificiraju predlošci s kojih je prepisan ćirilički Lajpciški lekcionar. Još je Milan Rešetar nedvojbeno dokazao da je glavni predložak bilo drugo izdanje Bernardinova lekcionara (1543.), međutim u prvom dijelu rada – pregledu relevantne literature – pokazujemo da taj podatak nije općepoznat te da se i danas nastanak Lajpciškog lekcionara bez temelja smješta na kraj XV. ili početak XVI. stoljeća. Za pogrješnu je dataciju zaslužan Joseph Schütz, koji je 1963. izdao jedinu monografiju o tom rukopisu, a radovi znanstvenika koji su pobili njegove teze nisu dovoljno poznati znanstvenoj javnosti, što će ovaj članak pokušati promijeniti. U drugom dijelu rada bavimo se konkretnim primjerima odnosa Lajpciškog lekcionara sa svojim predlošcima te, osim analize zanimljivih i nekih problematičnih primjera već poznatih u literaturi, nastojimo pružiti i neke važne, ali dosada nepoznate primjere i njihovo tumačenje.
• In this paper, we identify templates used for the transcription of the Lectionary of Leipzig (LL), written in the Cyrillic script. Milan Rešetar undoubtedly proved that the main template was the second edition of the Lectionary of Father Bernardinus Spalatensis (1543), but in a review of the relevant literature in the first part of our paper, we show that this information is not generally known and that, even today, the creation of the LL is associated with the end of the 15th or the beginning of 16th century. Joseph Schütz, who published the only monograph on this manuscript in 1963, is responsible for its incorrect dating. The work of scientists who refuted his work is also not known enough by the scientific public. This paper will try to amend this fact. In the second part, we deal with concrete examples of relations between LL and its templates. Beside the analysis of some interesting and problematic examples already identified in literature, we try to present some important but unknown examples and their interpretations.