Talk:Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Phillippicus 1743

MS or Collection page?

I'm not sure, but I guess most of the information added here is better moved to a page on the Collectio Remensis, which has not (?) been created yet.

I think so, too. I have taken the liberty to add an entry "Collectio Remensis" in the section "Future entries (work in progress)" at the very bottom of that page. The search reveals that the name "Collectio Remensis" is also used in the entry about the Quadripartitus and refers to a 6th century collection. Cf. also Collectio Sinemuriensis#Literature:, where Linda mentions that she once wanted to name the Collectio Sinemuriensis "Collectio Remensis" but retracted that proposal because of the collection in the Philippicus 1743.

So my personal suggestion: As soon as you are confident about the name, feel free to go to the description page, change the name accordingly, and click on the new entry in order to create the page and move the description from this manuscript entry over there (or give me a short hint and I'll do it, I just wanted to wait for a decision about the naming before I took any action). --Clemens Radl (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2022 (CEST)

Oops, I should have read your entry, before posting here: So the "Collectio Remensis" that was used for the Quadripartitus was also this very collection in the Phillippicus? So in that case, Linda has used the term "Collectio Remensis" in the Clavis book consistently for this collection, so my proposal is to keep it that way even if Reims was definitely not the place of origin. (By the way: even if we later on decide to rename the collection, this is no problem, the page can be renamed and a redirect can be added, so that any links will not be lost.) Clemens Radl (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2022 (CEST)

Yes, this is how I understood Linda: Remensis was already an established name for the collection in Phil 1743 when she proposed to use it for the Sinemuriensis. We should stick with Remensis, renaming collections always causes problems. But if, in the end, we want to change the name, no prblem; so please go ahead TStueber! Christof Rolker (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2022 (CEST)

Yes, it's the collection in Phill. 1743 Linda is referring to in her entry on the Quadripartitus (on p. 59). TStueber (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2022 (CEST)

I agree with Clemens. To create the page, simply click on the red link, start editing, and do not forget to save your changes. Also, Remensis is fine; confusion with Sinemuriensis is very unlikely. Feel free to contact us vcia the discussion page if you need help with changing the name, though. Christof Rolker (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2022 (CEST)

Yes, I would rather stick with Remensis, too, as this name has been used in the literature since the 19th century, and renaming it would make things more complicated IMO. As far as I know, Maassen had introduced the name in 1870 (it's also the name used by Linda in her handbook). Maassen couldn't have known better, because he didn't have access to the codex, which was still in the Phillipps library, when he prepared his "Geschichte der Quellen" in the 1860s. When working on his edition of the Merovingian Church councils, Maassen did see the Phillippicus though, which had been acquired meanwhile by the Berlin Royal library, together with a large portion of the Phillips library. TStueber (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2022 (CEST)