Provisional Drogereit pdf

C. S. 663 (p. 368): “gemendae mortis”
C. S. 669: “gemendae…peregrinationis”
C. S. 663: “massa infirme nature”
C. S. 669: “massa humanae conditionis”
2. Both : “heu pro dolor”
C. S. 663: “tonatis proles”
C. S. 669: “tonatis iduma”
C. S. 663: “alta, infima aeternae labentia” }world
C. S. 669: “alta, media, infima” }
C. S. 663: “praecepto paternali descedens”
C. S. 669: “praecepto pantacratoris reformavit”
3. Both : “quorum pro, adipiscendo…”
The royal style follows on with a straightforward “Ego”, although its format still
deviates. It is interrupted by the date details as in C. S. 669.
Even though it differs considerably from the later version the text of the Dispositive
section already has traits recognisable from the later format.
C. S. 663: “donando confero…”
C. S. 669: “condonando tribuo…”
Cf. Above:
“elegantissimam…(portiunculam) id est…mansiones…”
“ut ille eam sine…praecipitio invisae servitutis…” “cunctisque utilitatibus ad eam
pertinentibus…”
The Sanction completely gives away the style of Ae. A, even if only isolated wording
shows similarities to the later versions.
a) C. S. 663: “Si autem, quod non optamus, evenerit aliquis subperbiae fastu
afflatus…”
C. S. 669: “Si autem, quod non optamus, aliquis subperbe…invidia afflatus spiritu
evenerit …”
b) Cf. C. S. 677 with these wordings (see above):
“…et huius meae donationis et compositionis singrapham…elidere. infringere.
minuere…”
“…intellegat se apud Iudam proditorem…qui ab…
“Filius” dicitur “perditionis”…”
As with C. S. 669 there is a part of the date after this Sanction which presents not the
words but the style of the later structure. We see “scedula” and “depicta est” as well
as the list:
“…suous subregulos, episcopos, duces, iudices, proceres, dignitates. gaudio
cum magno Pascendo.”
Next follows the boundary clause and a further part of the dating, which later, after
some modification, forms the final sentence. The start “huius namque…” goes at the
beginning of the later compiled version. Here it reads as follows:
368