Talk:Bruno of Cologne

Was there a Misidentification?

Legend of the Damnation of the Doctor of Paris

Did Jacob Bidermann properly identify Bruno - in this case, St. Bruno - as one of the many friends of the Doctor of Paris, assembled in the cathedral for his last rites, and unusually privileged for something most of us would have a hard time believing ever happened.

The book's frontispiece (Edinburgh Press edition) to Jacob Bidermann's treatment of the Damnation of the Doctor of Paris happens to carry a full page rhetorical caveat that, if the legend is not properly to be laid at the feet of St. Bruno, then to whose feet should it be laid? In any case, Bidermann's play merely recounts the fate of some other man, we are told. Well, it's certainly nice to have a caveat like that, 500 years after the fact, where the dusts of time tend to make any more accurate of an identification almost impossible.

Nevertheless, it implies that Jacob Bidermann was working on materials commonly available to researchers of the time, and regardless of the materials at hand, he knew that he was relying on arguable foundations hundreds of years old when he put his version of the story together in 1602.

NPOV?

Having read this article, I question whether it uses the proper neutral point of view necessary for an encyclopedia article. I refer readers to the American Heritage Dictionary's definition 2 at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hagiography. WeeWillieWiki (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 18 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

---

• Bruno of Cologne → Bruno of Cologne (Carthusian)
• Bruno of Cologne (disambiguation) → Bruno of Cologne

– "Bruno of Cologne" is too ambiguous. There were four archbishops of Cologne of this name on top of the Carthusian founder. A majority of the top ten Google Scholar hits, for example, are for the first archbishop, not the Carthusian. And both men are regarded as saints. I am not strongly attached to the disambiguator "(Carthusian)". Srnec (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Queen of Hearts (talk • stalk • she/they) 01:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. A saint and founder of a major order. I think he's primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp: What about "Bruno the Carthusian"? It is used, e.g., in Bruno the Carthusian and His Mortuary Roll (Brepols, 2014) and Bruno the Carthusian: Theology and Reform in His Commentary on the Pauline Epistles (Salzburg, 2013). It gets 430 GScholar hits. The 10th-century archbishop is not an obscure figure and is also regarded as a saint. "Bruno of Cologne" is a very common way to refer to him, as in the thesis title The Political Career of Archbishop Bruno of Cologne and throughout Henry Mayr-Harting's mongoraph Church and Cosmos in Early Ottonian Germany: The View from Cologne (Oxford, 2007). Srnec (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  I realise that the archbishop is not obscure, but I still think the Carthusian founder can be regarded as primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Support. The archbishops (esp. the first) are certainly very famous. I am not particularly thrilled by the disambiguator "(Carthusian)". "Bruno the Carthusian" sounds smoother, but is probably not as recognizable. Although I am wondering if in this case the status quo is really that intolerable - that is a simple hatnote to the disambiguation page? Walrasiad (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Necrothesp. A good case for primary topic can be made here, plus we don't seem to have an ideal disambiguator and overall this seems like a solution looking for a problem to me. The status quo is fine.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.