I find myſelf unable to acceſs anything ſtored under
Could non m be making reference to non mendatum novum etc. in the next line, in the same way as we have the first few words of a verse above in qui dicit se, "he who says he"? I'm not sure what the point would be, but...a. On the path of justice and charity and patience. Who prayed for his ennemies. b. Who said "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me" (Matt. 16.24). c. From virtue to virtue. In the measure of his power. d. And these commandments must be observed, because... (the printed book has quia non in, which doesn't make a complete sentence - "because not in" -; the manuscript has qz non m, and I don't know what it might abbreviate...)
The Venice is much newer version than Rusch and has the same readings except that the Venice has many interpolations that were added. Migne is a version that had the interlinear glosses left out and appears to be copied from a manuscript that has less marginal glosses than Rusch. I am also using a manuscript that is older than all of them, around 1200ad. There are even less glosses than Migne, which means that as more copies were made over time the more glosses were added.
In fact I'm finding the image rather bad, and hard, even sometimes impossible, to read the small letters. For the last page I translated, I just looked at this to see which lines were a. b. or c. etc., to see where the page ended, and to check some possible differences when I found things I wasn't sure of (like for the non m), but for the major part I used the manuscript here, because I really can't read everything on this link.I haven't made any more for the interlinear glosses, I think Pacis Puella has been using the link I gave that has the whole Venice Gloss. If that works for her ok then I wont need to put them on PDF. It zooms in good. Here is the link to the Venice gloss http://www.archive.org/stream/bibliorumsacroru06strauoft#page/695/mode/1up
Here is what Nicholas of Gorran has, which seems to be the gloss and the Scripture in context
Dicit ergo, charissimi. Glossa, attendenda sunt haec mandata, quia non sunt nova: unde charissimi charissima affectione mihi conjuncti.
That is a book printed with a 'Roman' type font. I would say Renascence period.I was wondering, how old exactly is this manuscript?
Ah, I would have thought it was older (I thought Renaissance hands were more convoluted stuff and harder to read than that, lol). Thanks. In any case it's really a nice handwriting.That is a book printed with a 'Roman' type font. I would say Renascence period.