Typos: Difference between revisions

From Clavis Canonum
(Bamberg Anselmo dedicata)
(Collectio Bonaevallensis prima / secunda)
Line 7: Line 7:
DU02.052: location refers to DX instead of DV https://beta.mgh.de/databases/clavis/db/legacysearch?context=10&key=DU02.052
DU02.052: location refers to DX instead of DV https://beta.mgh.de/databases/clavis/db/legacysearch?context=10&key=DU02.052


DE03.125 is said to be found on fol. 87rb to 88va but in fact already ends on fol. 8'''7'''va, see https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bvb:22-msc.can.5-2#0178 Also, the Clavis entry seems to conflate to canons: 3.125 ends line 8 "... ipse patiatur", the next line is a new canon <H>ic constituit ut quicumque episcoporum evocatus ... quod est formata." The same additional text has been reported for another (now lost) copy of the Anselo dedicata: Fournier, Origine, p. 478 n. 7
DE03.125 is said to be found on fol. 87rb to 88va but in fact already ends on fol. 8'''7'''va, see https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bvb:22-msc.can.5-2#0178 Also, the canon happens to be a complicated case. An additional canon was added, but it has no rubric, no inscription, and no number; in the bamberg manuscript in addition the initial letter was forgotten. Linda therefore was right to treat this text as one canon, although in other mss there clearly is a difference between c. 125 and c. 125A.
 
The [[Collectio Bonaevallensis prima]] has the key BA but in the list of keys, "BA" refers to Collectio Bonavallensis '''secunda'''.

Revision as of 11:09, 24 February 2023

FIXED EX GESTIS SANCTI BONFATII MARTYRIS " http://www.mgh.de/ext/clavis/search.php?search2=&search3=&search4=&search5=&search6=EX+GESTIS+SANCTI+BONFAT*&search7=&search8=&search9=&search10=&lang=de&maxrows=20

FIXED AP060 Inskription "Sevus servorum dei"

FIXED IP03.166 Rubric "SI SEVUS SCIENTER..."

DU02.052: location refers to DX instead of DV https://beta.mgh.de/databases/clavis/db/legacysearch?context=10&key=DU02.052

DE03.125 is said to be found on fol. 87rb to 88va but in fact already ends on fol. 87va, see https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bvb:22-msc.can.5-2#0178 Also, the canon happens to be a complicated case. An additional canon was added, but it has no rubric, no inscription, and no number; in the bamberg manuscript in addition the initial letter was forgotten. Linda therefore was right to treat this text as one canon, although in other mss there clearly is a difference between c. 125 and c. 125A.

The Collectio Bonaevallensis prima has the key BA but in the list of keys, "BA" refers to Collectio Bonavallensis secunda.