Talk:Bruno of Cologne
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Bruno of Cologne is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
Bruno of Cologne is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
[edit] Was there a Misidentification?
[edit] 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.
