Talk:Cenodoxus

message: The article "Cenodoxus in Latin" should not be merged into the parent article "Cenodoxus" even though one is completely in English and the other is partly in Latin and partly in English.  For one thing, the glosses in the latter are in English, and, where suitable, glosses in other languages ought to be permitted.
Interested readers should not have to click their way over to a different language area just because sentences in different languages might exist in the same article.
The companion article "Cenodoxus in Latin" is not a strict copy of an original source document because it has chapter headings in English, and original English commentary occurs at regular intervals, something not seen anywhere else than here at Wikipedia.  The original play had no English in it, and had but a minimal description of what was going on.  Descriptions of scenery, or of props, or wardrobe, or of the attitudes or bearings of the characters, or of intricate stage directions, were all lacking in the original.  Any or all of the commentary - editorial surplusage, in effect - ought to be freely editable by anyone feeling the need to improve upon it.  Similarly, readers will benefit from having a mix of languages in the very same article.  For instance, if someone adds some French sentences here and there, assuming they are reasonably relevant, the value of the article is correspondingly increased, not diminished.
"Cenodoxus in Latin" could end up with a list of words that students of Latin may wish to learn.  This could make it a study aid that is useful for students of Classical Latin.  As more and more classrooms become "paperless" in favor of electronic communication, the existence of a more scholarly examination of "Cenodoxus in Latin" becomes more desirable. 
Unlike the article "Cenodoxus" - an article that's almost entirely in English - the companion article "Cenodoxus in Latin" is predominantly in Latin.  Locating "Cenodoxus in Latin" into a Latin language area over at Wiki-Sources is a good compromise if the English glosses and headings can be preserved somehow.
If "Cenodoxus in Latin" is moved to Wiki-Source, is it possible to preserve the English glosses and commentary? <unsigned>.
:Please sigh your posts. Please read carefully the policy wikipedia:no original research. Wikipedia is not a place for essays or for detailed literary analyses of works. If someone had already analyzed the work, this analysis may be presented here, but with clear attribution and with keeping wikipedia:Copyrights policy in mind. Thank you. mikka (t) 18:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cenodoxus in Latin

message: No it does not. The legend is set in the lifetime of Bruno; it does not "date back to the 11th Century". Missing this essential, one loses the point of the legend, as an insistently presented exemplum—a moral anecdote, brief or extended, real or fictitious, used to illustrate a point— of the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone  sola fides, a point of doctrine that was urgently debated between Protestants and Catholics during the 16th century. This sermonizing article would benefit from a dash of cultural history. --Wetman 13:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jacob Bidermann may have been a creative genius, but originality was not necessarily one of his virtues.  Like the latecomer Goethe, he took earlier literary sources and worked them together in such a way as to have them come out and appear original.  Goethe, for instance, took the idea of making a Pact with the Devil - already a popular theme, dramatized somewhat earlier, for instance, in a play of the 1580s  Theophilus - and fashioned it into a nearly endless, longwinded, plodding epic, Faust.  Bidermann appears to have done the same thing with materials commonly available in the year 1600.  Unfortunately, those materials - if they existed - are not preserved.  The likelihood of their existence can be implied, however, by the other literary works dealing with a nearly identical theme - a tragic hero or anti-hero, that meets up with the Devil and has a row or two with him, flying fists and words, and all.  (At least in the 20th century, it is hard to imagine someone growing up not exposed to these kinds of stories as a child, where a hero does battle with the Devil.)  As a writer, sure, Bidermann places Cenodoxus in the 11th century.  But I don't think he was original enough to have dreamed up the idea by himself.
We would know that the purported legend was among "materials commonly available", because there would be some passing reference to Cenodoxus in other surviving materials before Biderman's sacred drama. Some brief mention in a vita of St. Bruno especially. Some representation of the "legend" in ms illumination or sculpture. Is there anything at all? There is nothing about Biderman's product that suggests a written source. Personal conflict with the Devil is a very general Christian theme, which shouldn't obscure the particularity of Cenodoxus' failure to be saved by his works— and his scientia or doxus, for the implicit "moral" is as anti-intellectual as  as it is theological, don't we all agree?. --Wetman 07:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "The Legend dates back to the 11th Century."

message: What does the very choice of a name for this imaginary "doctor of Paris" tell the alert hearer of his expected role in the brief moral anecdote? in other words, what did Coenodoxus connote to hearers whose Greek might be limited but knew the Greek of "coenobite" and "orthodoxy"? What does the symbolic name tell of of the alleged historicity of the anecdote? What is the parallel with Saint Stephen protomartyr, whose name also simply denotes his role? --Wetman 13:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even as the audience views the play for the first time, first-timers would have been informed at the outset that the Greek word for "vainglory" is coenadoxia.  Maybe they were informed that it was both a comedy and a tragedy.  The contributor responsible for the Cenodoxus article refrains from telling us this.  It may not be self-evident to us what his name means, but would it have been self-evident to the people coming to see the play?  Would they have thought the play was nothing but another take on a braggart who is given some kind of a comeuppance at the hands of devils from Hell?
The passage in which Cenodoxus' name is thus explained to first-timers should be quoted, translated and remarked upon. The usual Greek for "vainglory" is hubris; on the contrary, coenadoxia, glossed as "uana gloria", is among the highly unusual words in Altus Prosator, which Biderman's contemporaries attributed to Saint Columba, as I find by Googling Coenadoxia. Altus Prosator is reckoned the greatest of the early medieval Hiberno-Latin hymns— see Jane Stevenson, "Altus Prosator" at note 169 —an unexpected source, if it is such, for Biderman's naming of his "doctor of Paris", however, no? --Wetman 08:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Coenodoxus''

message: Overall, a real improvement.  I think some of the section about Faust could be retained, however--that would seem to be the most notable thing about Cenodoxus, and to delete it entirely seems excessive. Nareek 15:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading the following is disconcerting, if the article concerns Biderman's Cenodoxus: "(Jacob Bidermann's poetic account in Latin verse, following a perfect iambic meter, constitutes a slight departure from the account below.)" Why? And why does the text assert "It is based on a legend from the 11th century." No 11th century source is being obliquely invoked here, I surmise; this is simply a naive confusion of the date of the play's persona based on Bruno of Cologne, with the historical individual living in the eleventh century. Cutting out the Faust connection is not called for: I've restored it right in the opening: this is the primary significance of Cenodoxus in the larger scheme of the history of culture. --Wetman 16:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proto edit 

message: In the section titled "Bruno" it says that Bruno was a friend of Cenodoxus's. I became confused because reading the article I thought Cenodoxus was only the name of a play and of a fictional character in that play. But the Carthusians order of monks that St. Bruno founded is real as it seems according to the Carthusians article, and so is St. Bruno himself (Bruno of Cologne). 62.16.177.8 16:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's fictional. I did find a book that explains the connection on Google Books. "The New Science and Jesuit Science: Seventeenth Century Perspectives" by Mordechai Feingold. --71.104.1.18 (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Cenodoxus not fictional then? (Bruno)