Talk:Summa de casibus poenitentiae

Just for the record

The article as it stands after User:Darkness Shines' recent reverts [1] contains at least two fundamental errors, one so fundamental as to make the very lead sentence nonsensical.

1. The Summa isn't "a manuscript"; it's a work, of which multiple manuscripts exist, as is quite normal for medieval works of this kind (none of them autographs). The source Binski & Zutshi (2011), claimed to support the mistaken intro sentence, merely happens to be speaking of one specific manuscript copy of the Summa (Cambridge, Add. 7220 [2]), without implying in any way that this specific copy is the only one or otherwise special. Incidentally, the manuscript shown in the image File:Summa de casibus poenitentiae.jpg, which is now falsely labelled as a page from "the" manuscript, happens to come from a different copy, Oxford Bod. MS. Tanner 335 [3].
2. The article speaks of two works, one Summa de casibus poenitentiae ("on the cases of penance") and one separate Summa de poenitentia et matrimonio ("on penance and marriage"), said to have been written later. This is misstated. The text that was indeed written later was titled Summa de matrimonio ("on marriage"); the combined title "on penance and marriage" is merely the cover term applying to a combination of the two texts, where the later de matrimonio part is affixed as a fourth book to the original de casibus poenitentiae. This is all quite clearly described in one of the sources already cited, Payer (2005) [4]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)