SEER, Vol. 85,No. 3, July 2007 Reviews Varpio, Mirja. Evangelium Cyrillicum Gothoburgense: A Codicological,Palaeographical, Textological and Linguistic Study of a Church Slavonic Tetraevangel. Lund Slavonic Monographs, 9. Department of East and Central European Studies, Lund University, Lund, 2005. xii + 224 pp. Illustrations. Tables. Appendix. Bibliography. Index. Price unknown. Mirja Varpio's study investigates this Church Slavonic Tetraevangel manuscript, which was written inGalicia at the beginning of the seventeenth century and belonged to a church in Przemysl', but ? under mysterious circumstances ? was removed to Sweden after the FirstWorld War. The manuscript, known as Evangelium CyrillicumGothoburghense, henceforth ECG, is now in the possession of G?teborg University Library, department of Manuscripts, shelfnumber PK 226. Following a short introduction examining the manuscript's provenance and the scribe's whereabouts, Varpio presents the conclusions of her codicological investigations (chapters two and three), suggesting that the ECG was used as a Gospel book during the liturgy in the services of a non-monastic church. On the basis of the watermarks on the paper used the author dates the manu script to between 1605 and 1620. In chapter four she gives a meticulous palaeographical description of the codex, localizing the script to the southwest of theEast Slavonic area, and underlining certain similaritieswith Moldovian codices. In her overview of the manuscript's contents and structure (chapter five) Varpio highlights itscharacteristic traits, such as the placement of the table of annual pericopes before the canonical text,which connects itwith Serbian or Moldovian Tetraevangels, or theGreek tradition in renumbering theweeks, showing a certain influence from the monasteries on Mount Athos. Con cerning the calendar in the ECG (chapter six), the author draws attention to references to certain regional East Slavonic, Serbian and Athonite commemo rations of feasts and saints and the absence of special Bulgarian feasts. Investigating the affinitieswith other codices of the Slavonic Gospel tradition (chapter seven), Varpio comes to the conclusion that the 'ECG belongs to a text tradition that was widespread in the Carpathian and Subcarpathian regions' (p. 102). In her detailed linguistic study (chapter eight) Varpio characterizes the scribe's Church Slavonic as being basically East Slavonic, withMiddle Bulgar ian influences on the orthography and certain regional Ruthenian traits. In chapter nine Varpio presents the conclusion of her studies of the accentuation of the ECG, showing dialectical influences from theWest Boiko area in Western Ukraine. Unfortunately Varpio's study contains a number of questionable elements and incorrect statements, only a few of which can be touched upon here. Considering the fact that themigration of this particular manuscript from Galicia to Sweden was highly accidental, it is unclear why the author, instead of giving an overview of studies concerning the tradition of Slavonic Tetraevangels, discusses investigations of other Church Slavonic manuscripts REVIEWS 567 saved in Sweden (1.3,p. 4f ). In thiscontext I.Agren's study on theParaenesis of Ephraim the Syrian is mentioned, but not her concordance, which undoubtedly ismore relevant for the study of the Slavonic translation of Gospel books (I. Ljusen, Gre?sko-staroslayjanskij konkordansk drevnejsimspiskam slavjanskogo perevoda evangelij, Uppsala, 1995). In the chapter on the ECG's calendar itwould have been useful if Varpio had considered O. V. Loseva's Russ/?e mesjaceslovy XI-XIV vekov (Moscow, 2001). This would have avoided such untenable arguments as the following: that commemorations of Russian saints and feasts were rarely mentioned in themenologia of liturgical books until themiddle of the sixteenth century (pp. 79, 81). According to Loseva's studies, the commemoration for Feodosij Pecerskij, for example, isfixed in calendars of fifteen, forBoris and Gleb, in more than fifty Gospel books from the eleventh to fifteenthcenturies (Loseva, pp. 350-91. See also the chapter 'Russkie prazdniki', pp. 87-119). The com memoration forTheodosios Coinobiarches has been mistakenly placed under the feasts 'original toRus" (p. 79). Contrary toVarpio's claim (p. 81), the Athonite Saints Peter and Athanasius are in factmentioned inEast Slavonic calendars prior to the sixteenth century (Loseva, p. 36of, 375). A mistake con cerning theGreek form of the name of StMartinian (Moepxiavo? instead of the correct form Mocpxivzocvoc) led the author to assume an intervocalic -m- as an East Slavonic language feature (MApTHM?ifcHMA, Varpio, p. 108 ? cf. the Greek form...