Talk:München, BSB, Clm 6241
From Clavis Canonum
Latest comment: 28 September by Christof Rolker in topic Glauche
Glauche
The following statement was removed from the article this morning:
- The contents of the first part (fol. 1-39) were later used for Clm 3852/II, while the second part (fol. 40-141) depends on Clm 6245 according to Glauche.
Was that because Glauche's hypothesis is outdated by recent scholarship or was this simply by accident? atb Christof Rolker (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2024 (CEST)
- Sharp eye: this happened by accident. I tried to incorporate previous comments & observations but must have accidentally removed this part. I'll immediately add it again - Glauche is, in my view, not outdated as yet. This manuscript has not enjoyed much research anyway, though I have not added all the literature yet, too. To be continued! Bruno Schalekamp (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2024 (CEST)
- Thanks for the prompt reply, and all well: it's a wiki. atb, Christof Rolker (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2024 (CEST)
