Talk:Glossator

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glossator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120831060912/http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr:80/Haiti/Cours/Ak/ to http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

@CanonLawJunkie: Can you explain what you are doing, because it doesn't look like improvement to me. The glossators, postglossators (commentators), decretists and decretalists are distinct things. You've rearranged the page in a way that makes little sense to me. This version looks better. This article was about a specific school, the glossators, not about the dictionary definition of one who makes glosses. Srnec (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

My understanding was that the page was about the concept of a glossator; about all the schools of the glossatores, Roman and canonical. I got this impression from the text of the article itself, since it talks about the medieval canonical glosses on the Decretum and the Decretals, thereby implying a broader scope of the article than your narrow construal would allow. Apparently I was mistaken, so I've restored the version you like better. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 00:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, some scholars do include the canonists among the glossators, as in the article on the glossators and post-glossators in the New Oxford Companion to Law. Others do not. I don't see any mention of canon law in the article on the glossators by Giulio Silano in Strayer's Dictionary of the Middle Ages. The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages article says explicitly that "although canon lawyers evolved similar types of literature, the term 'glossators' usually refers only to scholars of Roman law." The article as it is contains one paragraph on canon law and the intro is clear that the main subject is Roman law. You merged two other pages here and completely changed the scope and focus. I'd prefer if we discuss it.
I am not a canon law junkie (or any kind of law junkie). I am just a "medievalist" who once upon a time had to look up what all these terms meant. I would be comfortable with merging decretists and decretalists into a single page (called decretists and decretalists), and perhaps merging this page with post-glossators, but I think we should have separate articles with a Roman law focus and a canon law focus. Thoughts? Srnec (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the articles staying the way they are, now that you've clarified the scope of this article to be a specific school, and not the concept of a glossator generally (which the canonical literature often describes Decretists & Decretalists as, leading to my confusion, paired with the lack of clarity on this page due to its inclusion of Decretist and Decretalist scholars in the body of the article—technically in the lead section itself, since the article doesn't have a clear structure at the moment). I think there should be a clarification of the scope though. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 21:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I added a "see also" heading at the top of the article that clarifies its scope. That's all I think it requires to make the scope crystal clear. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 21:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

CIC // CI

This title is itself only a sixteenth-century printers' invention. The printer was Dionysius Gothofredus. The codex was previously called the complete compilation Corpus iuris. I would be interested in how one comes to the conclusion that as Authenticum was the high medieval textbook. Who says that? The Authenticum was a privately handwritten preparation of the Justinian Novellae. So far agreed. So far I've always assumed that the digests were represented by the Littera Florentina. Students did not copy their text materials anywhere in the world, as they do today, but traveled to the few universities and had direct access (here Bologna). Can someone give me a source? mg Stephan Klage (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)