| Common name of collection | p | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Type of collection | Letter collection (hypothetically) (explanation and all of this type) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date (relevant parts) | between 1075 and 1084 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bibliographical reference | Erdmann 1936 p. 27 onwards. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commentary | A German 'papist' collection from between 1075 and 1084 (according to Erdmann 1936 p. 29). Maybe the compiler knew the Hypothetical collection Bernold's collection
(Robinson 1978 p. 81). Healy 2006 p. 114 argued, that p contained more items than Erdmann thought. Unfortunately, Healy hasn't read Erdmann close enough, because Erdmann 1936 p. 22-23, note 57 did something astonishing: He anticipated Healy's assumptions and argued against them. Furthermore, the rest of Healy's speculations and arguments are not entirely convincing. For example, Healy assumes that p could have been Paul's fons formalis for Ep. vagans 10 (Healy 2006 p. 112). In Paul of Bernried, Vita Gregorii VII the rubric of the Ep. vagans 10 clearly was inspired by the rubric of Bernold's collection, respectively Sélestat 13 (Robinson 1978 p. 78). If p was the intermediate on the way the letter took from the Hypothetical collection Bernold's collection to Paul of Bernried, Vita Gregorii VII p must have contained a similar rubric. But no descendant of p has any introductory note or rubric. So, it's quite unlikely that p itself had any sentence surrounding Ep. vagans 10 and thus, it's not probable that it was Paul's fons formalis. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| May have contained (11 different items) |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Show visualisation of tradition |
