IV. Variationes

The “new edition” of λόγος ἀσκηταός, as is customary in the West in this kind of work, is accompanied by many “discrepancies” under the text. Regarding these “discrepancies”, Prof. Popov gave quite detailed explanations. “I gave a special mention in this edition of the works of Bl. Diadoche, located directly under the Greek text, they form, he says, so-called variant readings, variations (variationes). The marks of this department are of three kinds: some of them show the words in the form in which they are read in manuscripts and printed publications, and in which they are not accepted into the text, as incorrectly, in the opinion of the publisher, written... In these cases, material is offered that may dispose the reader to accept or reject the publisher's editorial amendment. Others indicate omissions of words and expressions noticed in some manuscripts... Still others mean differences manifested in changes in the form of words, in the rearrangement of words and their replacement with others, in the addition of new words and expressions, in numerous grammatical errors and typos” (p. XXVII). Without objecting, therefore, essentially to the acceptance of the publication of monuments of ancient Christian writing, which is accepted in science and has an undeniable importance, we cannot fully agree with the publisher only regarding the options of the third kind, of which many could be conveniently classified into the categories of the first two groups (for example, the forms of words, the addition of new words and expressions, etc.), and some without significant damage and even for the benefit of the case (we mean numerous grammatical errors 64 and typos) could be completely ignored. The latter was all the more necessary because prof. Popov in the end had to agree that, “despite the insignificant number of compared manuscripts (here is a frank and fair admission), the number of discrepancies noticeable in them is very large” and, “for the sake of reducing” their number, “irregularities in the placement of superscripts, obvious, meaningless speech, typos and grammatical errors, words distorted to the point of nonsense, were completely omitted, as they did not provide anything useful for correction” (p. XXVII-XXVIII). It is also impossible not to regret that the publisher did not completely omit the verb forms of the third person of the present tense, ending with ν (for example, ἐστίν vm. ἐστί) and for some reason even recognized by him as “a characteristic feature for this or that manuscript” (p. XXVIII). Regarding the options for λόγος ἀσχητιχός collected in his book, Prof. Popov holds the most optimistic views, considering this section of the book almost ideal. “The department of discrepancies, which requires painstaking and intense attention from its compiler, according to our publisher, does not exclude oversights (in the form, for example, omissions of words that are read differently); it could be brought to perfection if comparable manuscripts were located (especially when printing this section) at the place of residence of its compiler or in places close to it. This condition, he concludes, is only mentally imaginable for us” (p. XXVII). But we personally have a slightly different opinion on this matter. The “mentally imaginable” would not have turned into a real fact for the publisher, in our opinion, even if, by the dictates of fortune, in his place of residence he had at hand all the manuscripts he desired. The proof is right there in front of us. “Lithographic and photozincographic samples of the writing of some Greek manuscripts, according to which the text of the works was edited” bl. The Diadoche, now appended at the end of the book, was undoubtedly before the eyes of the publisher in his academic office, and yet it is not clear that, when printing the published texts, he would consult these photographs, the most reliable indicators of the correct reading of the texts of the monuments he published. Thus, in its various readings we did not find the marks: διὰ ποίας δή vm. διὰ ποίας δεῖ; ἐλευθερικῆς vm. εὐαγγελικῆς (Sn. No. II, pp. 1, 5. Comp. p. 21, lines 15 and 22); οἱ δέ γε κἂν vm. οί δὲ κἂν (Sn. No. IV, p. 4; coll. 525.9), etc. When viewing variants of Viennese manuscripts based on copies of Fr. Dorothea Vulizma, as will be seen below from our discrepancies, prof. Popov turns out to be quite imperfect in compiling his variationses, and leaves much to be desired in terms of their possible completeness. If we keep in mind the lists of λόγος ἀσκητικός of the Athonite and Constantinople manuscripts, completely unknown to our publisher, then the variationes can be brought to such an impressive size that Prof. could hardly even dream of. Popov. Many of these options are not only important, but also quite complex in a textual sense, and therefore are far from indifferent to students of creation, “distinguished by the subtlety of theological thought and the precision and originality of expression” (p. xxviii). Wanting now to come to the aid of future researchers of the works of Blessed. Diadoche in the matter of their comprehensive study, we give space here to the most important variants collected by us in eastern book depositories, with an exact indication of the very manuscripts from which these variants are extracted, in order to be able to accurately judge the state of the text of the works being studied at one time or another. Inventories, orographic irregularities and variants that have no scientific significance are completely ignored by us. The list of variationes presented to the attention of our readers, according to the manuscripts of the eastern book depositories (Constantinople and Athos), convinces us, first of all, that very important material for studying the text of this creation of the bl. Diadoche and his views on the essence of Christian asceticism in the book of prof. Popov's collection is far from complete. We are confident that many of our options, extracted from the manuscripts known to us, will help the future researcher of the works of Blessed. Diadoche and their scholiast in some cases can give a completely different direction of thought and indicate something new in the views of the writer being studied... This is the first thing. Secondly, now, after studying the new lists of λόγος ἀσκητικός, according to manuscripts from the 9th-19th centuries, the harsh verdict of Prof. Popov about the work of his famous predecessor in publishing this monument, Nikodim Svyatogorets, in his Philocalia. This verdict is explained by the insufficient acquaintance of the publisher of the “new edition” of λόγος ἀσκητικός with his best and oldest lists. Otherwise, Prof. Popov would not have recognized “for later amendments” (p. XIV), “alterations and later additions” (p. XVII), which appeared almost from the pen of the publisher of Philocalia, such discrepancies that can actually be found in manuscripts of the 9th, 11th, and 13th centuries. Of the variants noted by Mr. Popov in Philocalia as “traces of later amendments,” the following are read in the oldest manuscripts (for indications, see footnotes): We personally did not find justification in ancient manuscripts for only three readings in the Philocalia of Nicodemus the Holy Mountain, namely: 96, 17 χάριτος instead of παρακλήσεων; 91, 21: κακὰ λογιζόμενοι vm. κακολογιζόμενοι and 248, 3 for the addition of ἡμῶν μή (pp. XIV-XV). Thirdly, and finally, leaving aside the incompleteness of the collected options and the biased attitude towards the work of his predecessor, with a careful examination of the variations in the book of Prof. Popov and when comparing them with the main text of λόγος ἀσκητικός, one cannot help but see that the printed versions are only accessories, unnecessary luxury, which found a place in the work we are examining due to the desire to imitate Western scholarly editions of monuments of ancient Christian writing, but are not caused by the urgent need of the publication itself and have little effect influence on the main text of the monument. In his versions, Prof. Popov only “offers material that may prompt the reader to accept or reject the publisher’s editorial amendment” (p. XXVII). In other words, this means that the publisher shifts a significant share of the heavy editorial work from himself to the innocent reader, who, without any doubt, will not be easy to understand the numerous omissions of words, spelling and grammatical errors, verbal forms with and without ν at the end, etc., etc., indicated by the publisher with a jealousy worthy of better use. Popov, we explain the fact, incomprehensible at first glance, that in the main text of λόγος ἀσκητικός sometimes directly incorrect readings are allowed, although better and more intelligible readings are indicated in the variants. We include the following among this kind of readings: 24, 1 ὡς vm. ὥσπερ (Matthew 5:48); 36, 1 ἡμᾶς vm. ἐμὲ (John 3:30); 30, 7–8 οὐκ ἀγαπῶ, ὡς θέλω vm. οὐκ ἀγαπᾷ, ὡς θέλει; 96, 8 χρηστός vm. Χριστός; 97, 3 ἅγιον vm. ἅγιον ἀπόστολον Παῦλον; 127, 4 ἑτοίμην vm. ἕτοιμον; 146, 2 μέρη τῆς σαρκός vm. μέλη τῆς σαρκός; 199, 1 τὴν θεοφόρον συνείδησιν vm. θεοφόβον συνείδησιν; 280, 1 πόρους vm. ὅρους; 292, 1 μερίμνῃ vm. μνήμῃ; 346, 20 ὢ ἀλόγου προφάσεως vm. μετὰ ἀλόγου.προφάσεως; 352, 18 ἐπιμόνου vm. ἐπὶ πόνου; 378, 10 εὐχή vm. ψυχή, πλάτους vm. πλούτου; 397, 1 ἠπιους ἐννοίας vm. ἠπίας or νηπίους ἐννοίας; 486, 1 τιμῇ αἰωνίῳ vm. τιμῇ αἰωνίᾳ; 498, 11 τῇ ὑπερβολῇ vm. διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν (2 Cor. 12:7); 514, 2 ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου vm. τοῦ κόσμου (1 Cor. 5:10). In some, however, quite rare cases, the publisher of the “new edition” cites λόγος ἀσκητικός and evidence “justifying the preference of one reading over another” (p. 372), but this evidence is very brief and not always convincing, since they are distinguished by the publisher’s subjectivity, his personal taste, but are not drawn from him, as, in our opinion, should have been done in such cases, from the best ancient manuscripts. So, for example, the publisher’s reference to the Six Days of St. Basil the Great, when explaining the reading 27, 3 τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἥλιον (p. 27, note 1), and a note of a different reading in the Gospel of John, when reading 36, 1 ἡμᾶς δὲ ἐλαττοῦσθαι vm. ἐμὲ ἐλαττοῦσθαι (p. 36, note of this word in the rkp. library of the Lavra of Athanasius of Athos, 9th century, No. 42 G′; rkp. 12th century, library Vatop. No. 52, 12th century, No. 405; rkp. 1314 Xenoph. bib. No. 36, and in the second to the 1073 Holy Sepulcher in Constantinople, bib. Scriptures or monuments of ancient patristic writing, in addition to the best handwritten copies of the monument itself, is at least futile work. A similar work by a copyist of a 13th-century manuscript. Athos-Vatopedi Library No. 52, which placed the spelling features of some words found in the manuscripts and even direct errors sometimes even above the text, brought us into delight and tenderness and made us deeply regret that the publisher of the “new edition” of the ascetic word was unfamiliar with the work of his alter ego, which, perhaps, would have freed him from useless work in the critical edition of the 20th century... RKP. XV century Iversk. mon. No. 365. RKP. laurels Afav. Athos. XV century No. 85 L′. O. Dorofey Vulizma, correcting this word, reads: ἴσως δεῖ. PKP laurels Afav. Athos. 9th century No. 42 G′. Ibid. No. 42 Γ′; No. 85 Ω′ and in the RKP. XIII century Afono-Vatope. bib. No. 52. RKP. 1314 Athono-Xenoph. No. 36. RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 85 Ω′. There and in the RKP. Vienna bib. (according to Dorotheus Vulizma) No. 193. At Dorof. Vulisms of the RKP. Vienna bib. 93 and No. 193. Ven. Imperial bib. RKP. No. 193. According to Dorof. Vulnzme from the RKP. Ven. bib. RKP. Holy Sepulchre bib. 1073 No. 45. At Dorof. Vulisms in Vienna. RKPP. RKP. Vatop. bib. XII century No. 405. RKP. Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45; RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52; RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 85 Ω′. RKP. Holy coffin. bib. No. 45. RKP. Afaw. Athos. bib. No. 85 Ω′. RKP. Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45; RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G′. RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G ′; No. 40 G ′; RKP. Wat. bib. No. 405; RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52; No. 405; RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 122 K′. RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G ′. No. 122 K′; RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52. RKP. Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45. RKP. Vienna bib. (according to Dorof. Vulizma). RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G ′. Vienna RKP. (according to Dorof. Vulizma). RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 42 G ′. RKP. Ven. bib. No. 193 (according to Dorof. Vulizma). RKP. Athono-Xenoph. bib. No. 36. RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 42 G ′; RKP. Imp. Ven. bib. No. 193 (according to Dorotheus Vulizma). RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G ′; No. 86 Ω; RKP. Athono-Xenoph. bib. No. 36. RKP. Imp. Ven. bib. No. 98 (according to Dorof. Vulizma). Ibid. No. 93 and No. 193 (according to Dorof. Vulizma). RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 42 G′. RKP. Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45; RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 85 Ω′. RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G′; No. 85 Ω′. RKP. Vatop. bib. XV century No. 42; RKP. XVI century Iversk. bib. 1510 No. 1337. RKP. Vatop. bib. No. 43; RKP. Iver. m. No. 1337. RKP. Wat. bib. No. 42, No. 243, No. 405; RKP. Xenoph. bib. No. 36; rka. laurels Afan. Athos. No. 122 K′. RKP. Andreev, skete on Mount Athos, XII century. No. 866. RKP. Holy Sepulchre bib. 45. RKP. laurels Afan. Athos. No. 42 G′. RKP. XVII century Athono-Dionysus, bib. No. 278. RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G′, No. 128 K′; RKP. Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45; RKP. Vatop. bib. No. 52; No. 405. RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 85 Ω′. RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G′. RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 85 Ω′; RKP. Xenoph. bib. No. 36. RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 42 G′; RKP. Vatop. bib. No. 369, No. 405. RKP. Imp. Vienna bib. No. 93 and No. 193 (according to Dorof. Vulizma). RKP. Athono-Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. Imperial Ven. bib. No. 93 and No. 193 (according to Dorof. Vulizma). RKP. bib. Afan. Athos. l. No. 42 G′. RKP. Athos.-Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. Imp. Ven. bib. No. 193 (according to Dorof. Vulizma). RKP. Imperial Ven. bib. No. 193 (Dorof. Vulizme). RKP. Lav. Afan. Athos. No. 40 G′; RKP. Xenoph. bib. No. 36. RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 85 Ω′; RKP. Vatop. bib. No. 52. RKP. Holy Sepulchre No. 46; RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 40 G′; RKP. Vatop. bib. No. 369, No. 405. RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 122 K′. RKP. Imp. Ven. bib. (according to Dorof. Vulizma). RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52; RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 85 Ω′. RKP. Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45; RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 40 G′; RKP. Vatop. bib. No. 405. RKP. laurels Afan. Athos. No. 42 G′, No. 40 G′; RKP. Holy Sepulchre No. 45; RKP. Andr. monastery on Mount Athos No. 723; RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52; RKP. Xenoph. bib. No. 36; RKP. Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G′; No. 85 Ω′; RKP. Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. Vienna Imperial bib. No. 93 and No. 193 (according to Dorof. Vulizma). The RKP is also there. Afan. Athos. No. 85 Ω′. RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52; RKP. Xenoph. bib. No. 36; RKP. laurels Afan. Athos. No. 122 K ′; RKP. Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45; RKP. Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. Iver. bib. No. 1337; RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 122 K′. RKP. Vatop. bib. No. 405; RKP. Iver. bib. No. 1337. RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G′; RKP. Xenoph. bib. No. 36; RKP. Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G ′; RKP. Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 40 G ′; No. 85 Ω′; RKP. Vatop. bib. No. 52; RKP. Iver. bib. No. 1337. Ibid; RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 85 Ω′. RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G ′; RKP. Xenoph. No. 36; RKP. Dion. No. 278. RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G ′; RKP. Xenoph. bib. No. 36; RKP. Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G ′; RKP. Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45; RKP. Vatop. bib. No. 52. RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52; RKP. Imp. Ven. bib. No. 93 (according to Dorof. Vulizma). Ibid; RKP. Xenoph. bib. No. 36; RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 40 G′. RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52; RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 85 Ω′. RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52; RKP. Xenoph. bib. No. 36; RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 122 K′. RKP. Wat. bib. No. 369; RKP. Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 40 G′. RKP. Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45; RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52; RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 122 K′; RKP. Xenoph. No. 36. RKP. Athan. Athos. No. 85 Ω′. RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G′; No. 40 G′; RKP. Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45; RKP. Vatop. bib. No. 405; RKP. Xenoph. bib. No. 36; RKP. Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 42 G′ RKP. Imperial Ven. bib. No. 93 (according to Dorof. Vulizma). RKP. Imp. Vienna bib. No. 93 (according to Dorof. Vulizma). RKP. Xenoph. bib. No. 36; RKP. Dion. bib. No. 278. Ibid. No. 193 (according to Dorof. Vulizma). Pp. bib. Afan. Athos. l. No. 85 Ω′. RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 42 G′; No. 40 G′; No. 85 Ω′; No. 122 K′. RKP. Athos.-Dion. bib. No. 278. ὢν omitted. RKP. bib. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G′. RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 42 G′; Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45; RKP. Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 42. RKP. Athan. Athos. bib. No. 42 G′. RKP. Wat. bib. No. 405; RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 40 G ′; RKP. Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G′; No. 40 G′; RKP. Wat. bib. No. 405. RKP. Afan. Athos. Le 42 G ′. RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 85 Ω′; L 40 G ′ ; RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52. RKP. Imp. Ven. bib. No. 93 and No. 193 (according to Dorof. Vulizma). RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 40 G ′. Ibid; RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 40 G ′; No. 108 В′; No. 122 K′; RKP. Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45; RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52, No. 405; RKP. Xenoph. bib. No. 36. RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 40 G ′. RKP. Ven. Imp. bib. No. 98 and No. 193 (according to Dorof. Vulizma). RKP. Xenoph. bib. No. 36; RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 106 V ′. RKP. Vienna bib. No. 93 (Dorof. Vulism.). RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 85 Ω′; RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52. RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G′; No. 85 Ω′; No. 122 K′; No. 108 В′; Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. Holy Sepulchre bibd. No. 45 and Dion. bib. No. 278. Ibid; RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G′; RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52; Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45. RKP. Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45; Vatop. bib. No. 405. The RKP is also there. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 40 G′. RKP. Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45; RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52 and No. 405. RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. As 42 G′; RKP. Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 85 Ω′; RKP. Vatop. bib. No. 52. RKP. Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45; Wat. bib. No. 52; RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 85 Ω′; RKP. Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. Iversk. bib. No. 1337. RKP. Iversk. bib. No. 1337; RKP. Xenoph. bib. No. 36; RKP. Wat. bib. No. 403. Pp. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 42 G′; RKP. Ven. bib. No. 193 (according to Dorof. Vulizma). Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45; RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 122 K′; RKP. Dion bibl. No. 278. The RKP is also there. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G′. RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G′; Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45; Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. bib. Athan. Athos. No. 42 G′. RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52; RKP. bib. Afan. Athos. No. 85 Ω′. RKP. Wat. Bible No. 52; RKP. Afan. Athos. 85 Ω′. The RKP is also there. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 85 Ω′; No. 122 K′. The RKP is also there. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 42 G′; No. 85 Ω′; RKP. Ven. Imp. bib. (according to Dorof. Vulizma). RKP. Vatop. bib. No. 52; RKP. Afan. Afov bib. No. 85 Ω′. RKP. Afan. Afov. No. 40 G′. Ibid; RKP. Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. bib. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G′; Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45; Wat. bib. No. 52. RKP. bib. Holy Sepulchre No. 45. RKP. Wat. bib. No. 405; RKP. Iversk. bib. No. 1337; RKP. Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. Wat. bib. No. 405; RKP. Iver. bib. No. 1337. RKP. Imperial Ven. bib. (according to Dorof. Vulizma). RKP. Imperial Vienna bib. No. 93 (according to Dorof. Vulizma). RKP. bib. laurels Afav. Athos. No. 42 G′; RKP. Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45. RKP. Imperial Vienna bib. (according to Dorof. Vulizma). RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52 simple: βουλώὶ; RKP. Wat. bib. No. 405; laurels Afan. Athos. bib. No. 42 G′; No. 122. RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52; RKP. Imperial Vienna bib. (according to Dorof. Vulizma). RKP. Imperial Vienna bib. No. 93 and No. 193 (according to Dorof. Vulizma). RKP. Holy Sepulchre bnbl. No. 45. RKP. bib. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G′; Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45; RKP. Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. bib. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G′ Ibid; RKP. Wat. bib. No. 405; RKP. Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52, No. 43. The RKP is also there. Wat. bib. No. 52. RKP. bib. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G′; RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52; RKP. Dion. bib. No. 278. The RKP is also there. Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52; No. 405; RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 122 K′. RKP. bib. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G′; RKP. Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45; Wat. bib. No. 52, No. 405; RKP. Iver, bib. No. 1337; RKP. Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. Vatop. bib. No. 52, No. 405; RKP. Iver. bib. No. 1337. RKP. Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45; Iver. bib. No. 1337. RKP. Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45; RKP. monastery, Russian Andr. bib. on Athos No. 723. RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 42 G′; RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52, No. 405; RKP. Iversk. bib. No. 1337. The RKP is also there. bib. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G′. The RKP is also there. Iver. bib. No. 1337; RKP. Dion. bib. No. 278. RKP. Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 45; RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52, No. 405. RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52, No. 405; RKP. Iver. bib. No. 1337. RKP. bib. Avan. Athos. No. 42 G′. RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52; RKP. Iver. bib. No. 1337. RKP. bib. laurel Avan. Athos. No. 42 G′. RKP. Holy Sepulchre bib. No. 46; RKP. Wat. bib. No. 405. RKP. Wat. bib. No. 406; RKP. Iversk. bib. No. 1837. RKP. Wat. bib. No. 405; RKP. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G′. RKP. Vatop. bib. XII century No. 52; RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. XV-XVI centuries No. 124 K′ and XVII century. No. 121 J′; RKP. Iver. bib. No. 1337. RKP. Wat. bibd. No. 52; RKP. Xenoph. bib. 1314 No. 36. The RKP is also there. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 122 K′. RKP. Wat. bib. No. 52; RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. XV century No. 86 Ω′. RKP. Afan. Athos. bib. 9th century No. 42 G′. RKP. Dion. bib. XVII century No. 278. RKP. 9th century bib. Afan. Athos. No. 42 G′. The RKP is also there. Afan. Athos. bib. No. 85 Ω′. The RKP is also there. Afan. Athos. XIII century No. 40 G′; RKP. Athono-Xenoph. bib. 1314 No. 36; RKP. Athono-Dion. bib. XVII century No. 278. You might be interested in: