Talk:List of Gratian Manuscripts

Categories: A General Remark

As all versions of the List of Gratian Manuscripts except the first one are based on categories (above all Category:Manuscript of GR), the question which categories the articles on Gratian manuscripts are to be placed in is highly relevant for the list. Therefore, I will make a number of suggestions and comments here in the form of individual discussions so they can be discussed individually. My contributions are based on conversations Danica and I had among ourselves and with other contributors to this Wiki. I repeat some of my thoughts here to make more transparent how the existing categories came into being, to encouraged discussion of further improvement, and to document relevant discussions. Feel free to answer to this statement with more general comments or questions (but cee below for actual categories). atb Christof Rolker (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2025 (CEST)

Fragments

From early on, the Category: Fragment in this Wiki was used to mark physically (very) incomplete Manuscripts, often single leaves. For collections extant in very many copies, like Burchard, the Panormia, and the Liber Extra, there were also categories Like Category:Burchard Fragment. The main reason is that the distinction between more or less complete copies and smaller fragments is important for research, and unlike with collections extant in only a few copies this information cannot be easily integrated in the respective articles describing the collections. This also applies to Gratian. An additional reason to have the Category:Gratian Fragment was that our original list contained several fragments, but without any claim of completeness. Indeed a complete list of Gratian fragments is beyond our capability for the next years at least. However, for more or less complete copies this seems possible, and so it makes sense (I think) to have one category each for complete and for fragmentary copies, the former aiming at completeness and the latter at being useful for any scholar interested in fragments. atb Christof Rolker (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2025 (CEST)

maybe we adopt the same standard Martin Bertram uses for the List of Liber Extra mansucripts: only consider fragments of at least 10 folios, and ignore the rest Christof Rolker (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2025 (CET)

At the moment, some fragments are really small ones like Faenza, Biblioteca Comunale, sine numero. atb Christof Rolker (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2025 (CET)

sigla

I have added the sigla mentioned in the articles to the infoboxes, so that tables generated with DPL3 (like our current table) can display them too. A few observations based on very limited knowledge:

• There are a few manuscripts which are not exactely Gratian copies (hence not listed in our current list), but nonetheless have a siglum: Göttweig, Stiftsbibliothek, 181 (88), Città del Vaticano, BAV, Ott. lat. 3062. We can of course include them in a list of sigla, if we define it accordingly (basically a category "has Gratian siglum" independent of "is full Gratian copy").
• There is one manuscript which Weigand assigned a siglum to apparently in error: London, British Library, Royal 11.B.II (maybe just a typo for London, British Library, Royal 11.D.II?). Nonetheless, it may be useful to include it in a list of Gratian sigla (as opposed to a list of Gratian mss)
• In one case, I think Weigand was wrong not to count it as a Gratian copy: Trier, Bischöfliches Priesterseminar, Hs. 91.
• Firenze, Biblioteca Marucelliana, A. 298 is Fe in Anders' list but Fc in Weigand p. 741.
• The siglum Me is used for both München, BSB, Clm 4505 and München, BSB, Clm 13004, but maybe the former should actually be Mc.

atb Christof Rolker (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2025 (CET)

Gw and Vx: yes, these (Göttweig, Ottobonianus) are manuscripts that are important for our knowledge of the transmission of Gratian's text. They both contain parts of the text of the Decretum, so they are in a certain way Gratian manuscripts (in the same way as abbreviations contain parts of Gratian's text).

Lr: Weigand gave this a siglum, because it contains (f. 85v) a few Gratian glosses without the text of Gratian. He thought this was a very early example of glosses being transmitted separately, hence: "Wegen dieser Ausnahmeüberlieferung wird hier eigens darauf verwiesen." I think we can well make at least a stub for this manuscript, not include it among Gratian mss, but on the list of Gratian sigla, as suggested for Gw and Vx.

Tp (Trier): It is an abbreviation, not a full Gratian text.

Firenze: Fc is correct. (I am not as good a typist as I like to think)

Me is 13004 and 4505 is Mc. (Same comment.) Anders.winroth (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2025 (CET)