Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Voss. lat. qu. 69: Difference between revisions
(created article based on Brett and Elliot) |
Clemens Radl (talk | contribs) m (Set default sortkey.) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Voss. lat. qu. 69 | Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Voss. lat. qu. 69 is the eponymous manuscript of the so-called Leiden glossary which in various versions are found in 27 manuscripts and which according to {{author|Lapidge}} may have been compiled at Canterbury in the time of Theodore. As {{author|Elliot}} pointed out, this would make them extremely valuable sources to understand Anglo-Saxon canon law. | ||
{{author|Lapidge}} argued that the glosses use the [[Collectio Sanblasiana]]. {{author|Brett}} argued against this, and instead favoured a version of the [[Dionysiana]], specifically an enlarged version of the [[Dionysiana II]]; he also conceded that it was difficult to exclude (some version of) the [[Dionysio-Hadriana]]. {{author|Elliot}} pointed out that the manuscript tradition of the Leiden glosses is complicated, and that the compilers may have used several canonical collections to produce the glossae. Specifically, he suggested that "there were several Italian collections―among them almost certainly a copy of an enlarged Coll.Dion.II, and very probably a copy of Coll.Sanb.―in Canterbury during Theodore's day". | {{author|Lapidge}} argued that the glosses use the [[Collectio Sanblasiana]] (pointing inter alia to the possible English home of [[Köln, Erzbischöfliche Diözesan- und Dombibliothek, Cod. 213|the Cologne copy]]. {{author|Brett}} argued against this, and instead favoured a version of the [[Dionysiana]], specifically an enlarged version of the [[Dionysiana II]]; he also conceded that it was difficult to exclude (some version of) the [[Dionysio-Hadriana]]. {{author|Elliot}} pointed out that the manuscript tradition of the Leiden glosses is complicated, and that the compilers may have used several canonical collections to produce the glossae. Specifically, he suggested that "there were several Italian collections―among them almost certainly a copy of an enlarged Coll.Dion.II, and very probably a copy of Coll.Sanb.―in Canterbury during Theodore's day". | ||
== Literature == | == Literature == | ||
{{author|Brett}}, Theodore; {{author|Mettke}}, | {{author|Lapidge}}, [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263675100003689 School of Theodore and Hadrian] (1986); {{author|Brett}}, Theodore; {{author|Mettke}}, [https://www.degruyter.com/database/VDBO/entry/vdbo.vlma.4609 Vocabularius Sancti Galli], in: ²VL (1999), col. 479-482; {{author|Elliot}}, [http://individual.utoronto.ca/michaelelliot/manuscripts/texts/sanblasiana.html Sanblasiana] (analysis and transcription); {{author|Lapidge}}, Anglo-Latin Literature (2006) | ||
== Categories == | == Categories == | ||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Voss. lat. qu. 00069}} | |||
* Manuscript [[Category:Manuscript]] | * Manuscript [[Category:Manuscript]] | ||
* not in Clavis [[Category:Manuscript not in Clavis handbook]] | * not in Clavis [[Category:Manuscript not in Clavis handbook]] | ||
* not in Kéry [[Category:Manuscript not in Kery]] | * not in Kéry [[Category:Manuscript not in Kery]] | ||
* digitzed [[Category: | * not digitzed [[Category:Manuscript not digitized]] | ||
* 9th c. [[Category:Manuscript saec IX]] | * 9th c. [[Category:Manuscript saec IX]] | ||
Latest revision as of 16:54, 14 August 2024
Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Voss. lat. qu. 69 is the eponymous manuscript of the so-called Leiden glossary which in various versions are found in 27 manuscripts and which according to Lapidge may have been compiled at Canterbury in the time of Theodore. As Elliot pointed out, this would make them extremely valuable sources to understand Anglo-Saxon canon law. Lapidge argued that the glosses use the Collectio Sanblasiana (pointing inter alia to the possible English home of the Cologne copy. Brett argued against this, and instead favoured a version of the Dionysiana, specifically an enlarged version of the Dionysiana II; he also conceded that it was difficult to exclude (some version of) the Dionysio-Hadriana. Elliot pointed out that the manuscript tradition of the Leiden glosses is complicated, and that the compilers may have used several canonical collections to produce the glossae. Specifically, he suggested that "there were several Italian collections―among them almost certainly a copy of an enlarged Coll.Dion.II, and very probably a copy of Coll.Sanb.―in Canterbury during Theodore's day".
Literature
Lapidge, School of Theodore and Hadrian (1986); Brett, Theodore; Mettke, Vocabularius Sancti Galli, in: ²VL (1999), col. 479-482; Elliot, Sanblasiana (analysis and transcription); Lapidge, Anglo-Latin Literature (2006)
Categories
- Manuscript
- not in Clavis
- not in Kéry
- not digitzed
- 9th c.
