Po vsebini je zbornik zelo zanimiv. Vsebuje navodila za dušnega pastirja, „pomenik', skrajšani oktoih, kanonik in zbornik formularjev službenih pisem ter zapiskov. Pisava po 22 vrstic na strani je droben, lep polustav, ki v drugem delu (ff. 107—123) preide v lep hitropis. Pravopis z akcenti in spiritusi kaže močne sledi resavske šole, razen tega pa ima tudi sledove ruske predloge.Od ornamentike sta samo dve majhni pleteni črni vinjeti na f. 66 in 70. Rokopis je vezan v deske s poševnim robom, prevlečene s temno rjavim usnjem, z rebri na hrbtu in rumeno modrim kapitalom. Ornament na usnju je obrobni rastlinsko ornamentiran okvir z vtisnjenimi palmetami in rozetami ter zlatim medaljonom v sredini. Spredaj je v medaljonu razpelo s stoječima figurama, zadaj pa bogorodica. Zaponi nista ohranjeni. Kakor je razvidno iz vsebine seznama in iz jezika, je njegov osnovni tekst prepisan z ruske predloge, ki je bila sestavljena v začetku 17. stoletja, kmalu po smrti carja Feodorja (1598) in njegove vdove, verjetno pa pred smrtjo prvega ruskega patriarha lova, ki ni omenjen med umrlimi. Ta opomba je bila zapisana v Moskvi v času tako imenovane „smute', to je med koncem 1. 1610, ko je hetman Žolkevski odvedel na Poljsko tedaj že odstavljenega in pomenišenega carja Vasilija Šujskega, in 17. februarjem 1612, ko je umrl patriarh Germogen. Besedilo formularjev, je zelo zanimivo tudi zaradi okrašenega književnega stila, značilnega za to obdobje pravoslavnega baroka, in po stvarnih podatkih, saj so ti formularji očitno prepisani z dokumentarnih tekstov, v katerih so ohranjena tudi imena tedanjih cerkvenih dostojanstvenikov ter datumi. Na dveh mestih v teh formularjih navaja pisec svoje ime. Vsi navedeni podatki predstavljajo zanimivo gradivo o osebnosti lastnika in pisca rokopisa Jovana Zlokruhovića, ki sam sebe imenuje Črnogorca. V nobenem od teh zapiskov ne navaja zase duhovniškega naziva, niti ni jeromonah niti menih, ampak samo „grešni', „hudi' in podobno. Nabrekli stil njegovih tekstov, zlasti formularja njegovega pisma nekemu gramatiku, priča, da je tudi on bil eden od pomembnih literatov svojega časa. Zato je morda bil sekretar prav zvorniškega episkopa Teodosija v letih 1601 in 1602, ko je tudi prejemal naročila za prepisovanje knjig. Tako je bil zagrebški nomokanon napisan po naročilu nekega prezbiterja popa Jovana. Pozneje je mogel biti sprejet v službo patriarha Jovana in tedaj je najbrž sestavil priporočilo jeruzalemskim menihom. Od tam je bil verjetno z neko delegacijo poslan v Rusijo v času carja Vasilija Šujskega in je živel v Moskvi med poljsko okupacijo 1611—1612. Tam je prepisal v svoj rokopis podatke iz ruskega seznama in ni izključeno, da je tam nastal tudi večji del rokopisa, ki na številnih mestih izpričuje sledove ruske predloge. V domovino se je vrnil gotovo po osvoboditvi Moskve in verjetno po poroki carja Mihaila Feodoroviča 1. 1613. V Peći ni več našel patriarha Jovana, ki je bil zaprt v Carigradu in je tam umrl 1. 1614. Bil pa je pri patriarhu Pajsiju in tam je utegnil prepisati v svoj zbornik formularjev besedilo pisma, poslanega iz samostana iz turških in lutrovskih krajev.Cod. Kop. 32 In terms of content, the proceedings are very interesting. It contains instructions for the Dust Shepherd, the “milestone,” abbreviated octoses, the canon and a compendium of service letters and notes. The font of 22 lines per page is a tiny, beautiful acronym, which in the second part (ff. 107 - 123) passes into a beautiful hitrook. Spelling with accents and spiritusi shows strong traces of the Resava school, and it also has traces of Russian propositions. Of ornamentation, only two small knitted black vignettes per f. 66 and 70. The manuscript is bound in planks with a sloping edge, covered with dark brown leather, with ribs on the back and yellow blue capital. The ornament on leather is a fringe vegetable-ornamented frame with embossed palmettes and rosettes and a gold medallion in the middle. In front, a medallion was crucified with a standing figure and behind a blasphemy. Zaponi are not preserved. As can be seen from the content of the list and from the language, its basic text is copied from a Russian template, which was compiled in early 17. centuries, shortly after the death of Tsar Feodor (1598) and his widow, but probably before the death of the first Russian patriarch of hunting, not mentioned among the deceased. This note was recorded in Moscow during the so-called “smute,” i.e. between the end of 1. 1610, when the hetman Žolkevski took to Poland the then deposed and semantic Tsar Vasily Shuyski, and 17. February 1612, when Patriarch Germogen died. The wording of the formulae is also very interesting because of the ornate literary style characteristic of this period of Orthodox Baroque, and according to factual information, & nbsp; these formulae are clearly transcribed from documentary texts, which also preserve the names of the then church dignitaries and dates. In two places in these formulae, the writer gives his name. All the information provided presents interesting material about the personality of the owner and the manuscript writer Jovan Zlokruhović, who calls himself Montenegrin. In none of these notes, he cites for himself the priesthood title, neither the jeromones nor the monk, but only “sinful,” “severe” and the like. Nabreth the style of his texts, in particular the formulae of his letter to a grammarian, testifies that he was also one of the important literatures of his time. Therefore, he may have been secretary of the precisely Zvornik episcope of Theodosius in 1601 and 1602, when he also received orders to transcribe books. Thus, the Zagreb nomocanon was written to order some presbyter pop Jovan. He was later able to be admitted to the service of Patriarch Jovan and then probably made a recommendation to the Jerusalem monks. From there, he was probably sent with a delegation to Russia during the time of Tsar Vasily Shuyski and lived in Moscow during the Polish occupation of 1611 - 1612. There he transcribed in his manuscript data from the Russian list and it is not excluded that much of the manuscript was also created there, which in many places testifies to traces of the Russian proposal. He returned to his homeland certainly after the liberation of Moscow and probably after the marriage of Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich 1. 1613. He no longer found Patriarch Jovan in Peća, who was imprisoned in Constantinople and died there 1. 1614. He was, however, at Patriarch Pajsi and there he was able to transcribe the text of a letter sent from a monastery from Turkish and Lutrovsky towns into his own proceedings. Codod. Kop. 32