>At 11:19 AM 2/14/98 -0500, Tom Izbicki wrote:
>>I have been told that the liturgical books Charlemagne
>received from Rome
>>were little used in practice. I never have gotten round
>to checking on
>>this. Has anyone any references to offer on this matter?
>
>
Tom,
On the liturgical books from Rome I have no help for you. However,
there is some literature in regard to the copy of Benedict's "autograph"
RULE, which Charlemagne had sent two scribes (for extra careful
proofreading) to make at Monte Cassino. Modern editors of the RULE identify
Charlemagne's notarized copy as the source of a major branch of the textual
tradition (but a branch in some ways deficient--suggesting that the monks'
proud autograph boast was overdone). You should not have any difficulty
following this trail in the standard literature.
It would appear that Charlemagne's official RULE copy circulated
extensively. Biblical scholars imply that the Alcuinian Vulgate was well
disseminated. I will leave it to you as a canonist to generalize about the
fate of the Roman law collection obtained from Rome.
It would certainly be surprising if the liturgical books obtained
from Rome had a fortune radically different from the above.
--John Howe
Texas Tech
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|