Talk:Bernard of Cluny

In need a of an update?

Since most of this seems to have been extracted without much amendment from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, it might benefit updating from few modern sources.

Perhaps this would be a useful: Bernard of Morlaix: The Literature of Complaint, the Latin Tradition and the Twelfth-century "Renaissance" (1997). (RT) (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem, the Golden

Ewing's English words are better known, aren't they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There were three Bernards of Cluny.

As John Balnaves has pointed out, "Since [Bernard of Morlaix/Morlas] was quite certainly a Cluniac monk, Bernard has frequently been called Bernard of Cluny (Bernardus Cluniacensis). [...] [T]he text of the prologue of the De contemptu mundi suggests that Bernard, at the time he wrote the De contemptu mundi, was not a monk at Cluny itself, but at Nogent. There is another reason why the appellation 'Bernard of Cluny' is not helpful. At least two other Cluniac monks who lived at about the same time are styled Bernard of Cluny. One was prior of Cluny while Peter the Venerable was abbot [in the mid 1100s]. Another was the author of Consuetudines Cluniacenses, which the New Catholic encyclopedia attributes to the author of De contemptu mundi, though the date of compilation of the Consuetudines [1060-1090] makes that attribution unlikely. The problem of names is evident from entries in Medioevo latino, where there is some confusion between various Bernards, but where the style 'Bernardus Morlanensis, Cluniacensis monachus' seems now to be established for the author of De contemptu mundi. The latest edition of Buchwald lists him as Bernard de Morlaix." (Balnaves, F. John. Bernard of Morlaix: The Literature of Complaint. Canberra: Australian National University, 1997)

The Wikipedia article should be renamed "Bernard of Morlaix". Balnaves's comment should be included to clarify the identity of the subject. And the paragraph discussing Consuetudines cenobii Cluniacensis should be entirely dropped.

MonteGargano (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Split off De contemptu mundi

De contemptu mundi is sufficiently notable to deserve its own article. Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC

 Done Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)