Work dossier · summary and historical context
The Fragmenta attributed to Pope Gelasius I (492–496) survive only in later canonical and liturgical collections, with no contemporary manuscript of the complete work known. The source edition (ogl-pl) presents the Latin text without a critical apparatus. Attribution to Gelasius I rests on internal references and later testimonies, but some fragments may derive from later compilers or pseudo-Gelasian material. The fragments include a dispute over diocesan boundaries, referencing a synod that read acts of Pope Leo I (440–461), providing a terminus post quem. Textual cruces such as 'oterit' and 'presenlia' suggest scribal errors, while the name 'Virunnius' is unattested and may be a corruption. The edition does not provide a stemma or detailed manuscript witnesses.
The Fragmenta attributed to Gelasius I are significant for understanding the development of papal decretals and canon law in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages. They illustrate how later compilers preserved and sometimes altered papal documents to support ecclesiastical authority. The fragments also shed light on disputes over diocesan boundaries and the use of earlier papal acts (e.g., Leo I) in synodal decisions. However, the uncertain attribution and fragmentary transmission caution against overreliance on these texts as authentic Gelasian works.
The fragments are attributed to Pope Gelasius I, who served as bishop of Rome from 492 to 496, a period marked by the Acacian schism with the Eastern Church and by Gelasius's assertion of papal primacy. The fragments likely originated in decretals or synodal letters, but they survive only in later canonical collections (e.g., the Collectio Dionysiana or the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals) and liturgical compilations from the early medieval period. No contemporary manuscript of the complete work is known; the text was transmitted through later compilers who excerpted and sometimes reworked papal documents. The reference to a synod reading acts of Pope Leo I (440–461) provides a terminus post quem, but the date of the fragments' composition or compilation remains uncertain. The edition (ogl-pl) lacks a critical apparatus, so the reader must consult the source edition's introduction for transmission details. The fragments' survival in later collections reflects the medieval interest in papal authority and canon law.
Apparatus · what the pipeline recorded
| Coptic | Rendering | Count | First |
|---|---|---|---|
| no glossary terms recorded | |||