Talk:München, BSB, Clm 6241

From Clavis Canonum
Revision as of 11:25, 28 September 2024 by Bruno Schalekamp (talk | contribs) (→‎Glauche: Reply)

Latest comment: 28 September by Bruno Schalekamp in topic Glauche

Glauche
Latest comment: 28 September2 comments2 people in discussion

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Was that because Glauche's hypothesis is outdated by recent scholarship or was this simply by accident?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)Reply[reply]

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 I'll immediately add it again - Glauche is, in my view, not outdated as yet.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)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://data.mgh.de/databases/clavis/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:München,_BSB,_Clm_6241&oldid=11475"