Talk:Hrotsvitha

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Erks29.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TaliaMary. Peer reviewers: Cpetryshyn, Hroitberg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Women And Men

I Removed this Line.

"As a 10th-century Christian, she accepted the idea that women are inferior to men both physically and intellectually due to the fall of Eve."

Christians of The Middle Ages did not view Women as Inferior to Men Mentally, and Physically. In fact, Christians were taught that both Sexes were Equal before God.

Further, the Article makes no sense if She viewed Women, including Herself, as Inferior. After all, the same Article, in the same Segment, just below this Line, says the opposite.

"Hrotsvitha depicted women as having the power of self-determination and agency through taking the veil and abstaining from sexual relationships. This presents a very progressive view of women and their power for society at her time.[citation needed] While she writes of women as virtuous, courageous, witty, and close to God she only speaks about one man without contempt, finding that they are disproportionately susceptible to temptation. Hrotsvitha sees women being the weaker sex as allowing God to more easily work through them to find grace for their salvation and the salvation of those with whom they come in contact. This, therefore, suggests that women are not less than men in the eyes of God. Hrotsvitha believes that a virginal life dedicated to Jesus is best, but she can be empathetic towards mothers, and even prostitutes,[4] thus demonstrating a keen understanding of women's lives and options at the time.[13]"

How can she see Women as more Virtuous nd Less susceptible to Temptation whilst seeing Women as inferior?

SKWills (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Dates, etc.

LC has her dates as c. 935-c. 975; this article has 935 to c. 1002; needs clarification.

I believe her dates are conjectural; the LC subject heading as you say lists c. 935 to c. 975 so I've put that in the article. If anyone wants to change that, please cite authority. Strawberryjampot (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Also should the old Cath. Encyc. article be taken out and the whole thing rewritten? Newer research has likely been done (the old CE is from 1913)--FeanorStar7 09:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Name

Though considerable variation occurs in the name in recent English language sources, the most common form seems to be Hroswitha: this is the form used in (among many other books) the most cited recent work on her, that by Anne Haight, which was published by the Hroswitha Club, an association of women book collectors formed in New York in 1944, and it's also the name used in one of the books on the era best known to non-specialists, Helen Waddell's The Wandering Scholars. Given all this, I think there's a good argument for using Hroswitha for this page and cross-referencing the other forms, but I won't do it until leaving time for discussion. (Or if anyone else wants to do it if there's no objection, go ahead; I might not get to it for a while.) Strawberryjampot (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a seminal work on her in English? I really don't know anything about her, but after a bit of searching on Google and Google Scholar, I'm finding that yes, it needs to be moved away from Hrosvit. However, I find more, and more relevant, references to her as Hrotsvit than as Hroswitha. (The most important finding is that gscholar gives 398 to Hroswitha, and 455 to Hrotsvit). Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a scholar in the field, but just looking at the bibliographies I can't seem to find anything that would be called a seminal work in English. The Haight book is the only one I've seen cited in general reference work articles, which I think is another argument for using that book title's form of Hroswitha, since it seems to be the most common form in works for a general audience, rather than a scholarly one. Maybe some actual medievalists could comment. Strawberryjampot (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And I just looked in Charles W. Jone's Medieval Literature in Translation, maybe the most commonly found such anthology, and it uses the form Hrotswitha, which at least is close to Hroswitha. Strawberryjampot (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well in the absence of a seminal work on her, I'd say we need to stick with what we've found as the most common name. For my instistence on this, please see WP:NAME. Basically, articles are supposed to be given the most common name: "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature" and "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject". So how this plays out is usually people presenting G and Gscholar results, as I did. I checked out Hrotswitha, which gives 6010 hits on Google, and 231 on GScholar. These are markedly less than the results for Hrotsvit and Hroswitha. Per naming policy, it really needs to be at one of these locations, based on what I found. It is sort of a toss-up between them, but in making a decision, unless there is a compelling reason for Hroswitha, Hrotsvit does have a majority. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The following three sources are all standard and general works in the drama / theatre studies field, and all three give her name as "Hrotsvitha":

• Banham, Martin, ed. 1998. The Cambridge Guide to Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. ISBN 0521434378.
• Brockett, Oscar G. and Franklin J. Hildy. 2003. History of the Theatre. Ninth edition, International edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. ISBN 0205410502.
• Carlson, Marvin. 1993. Theories of the Theatre: A Historical and Critical Survey from the Greeks to the Present. Expanded ed. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0801481546.

DionysosProteus (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So you think Hrotsvitha is preferable to Hrotsvit? Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

PS, I refined the GScholar search; I had earlier ruled out Hrotsvitha because most of the entries in Google were unrelated or did not give that as her primary name. But when the Scholar results are restricted to English-language, we get 392 for Hrotsvitha, 348 for Hrotsvit, and 293 for Hroswitha. Do we need any fine-tuning to the results, or shall we move to Hrotsvitha? Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I note that the Library of Congress Authorities File main heading is also: Hrotsvitha, ca. 935-ca. 975. So we might as well go with that, if there's no disagreement among people reading this. I'm not sure I know how to change a page or cross reference, so if anyone else wants to do it, please go ahead; otherwise I may eventually figure out how to do it myself. Strawberryjampot (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it to Hrotsvitha; you and I obviously agree, and since Dionysus ;) proposed it, I presume he is fine with it as well. FYI, when you're editing the page, where all the help-type links are, there should be section on editing help and one is 'move this page'. If you're moving it to a redlink, that's all you have to do. If it's something more contentious than this has been, you need to go through the process outlined at WP:RM. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Strawberryjampot (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

First medieval dramatist

I've removed the sentence: She wrote in Latin, and is considered by some to be the first person since antiquity to compose drama in the West. This may well be true, but I believe that Wikipedia policy requires such claims to be referenced rather than attributed to a vague "some say." If anyone wants to put it back, please add a proper reference. Strawberryjampot (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

non sequitur

"Hrotsvit believed Otto had an affinity for Italy because of romances which are set there such as the story of Geoffrey Rudel. Pilgrims returned commending the troubled Queen Adelheid. Hrotsvit penned a number of legends in verse. Two of these are St. Gingulphus and Theophilus." What does Queen Adelheid have to do with the rest of the paragraph? 4.249.63.11 (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner mentions she was a re-incarnation of Plato

See 1924-09-23 – Karmic Relationships Vol 4 Lecture 10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.230.176 (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Modern Perceptions of Hrotsvitha

I'm unsure how necessary this section is, perhaps it could be moved to works?

Also, what is Basilius an example of? Perhaps someone with more expertise than I could clean this section up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel.leander (talk • contribs) 00:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

"Most remarkable woman"?

I'd edit out that claim, since it seems to be quoted only from an obscure feminist "Hrothsvitha Club Magazine, p3". Try googling the supposed author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.12.116.78 (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Proper pronuncation

The article lede contains the following sentence: "Hrotsvitha's name appears variously in the forms Hrosvite, Hroswitha, Hroswithe, Rhotswitha, Roswit and is modernized as Roswitha but the proper pronunciation is Hrotsuit." What does this mean? The name "Hrotsuit" is not accompanied by an IPA transcription, and it is unclear which language's orthography is used instead. In addition, the article title is "Hrotsvitha", and that seems to be the most common spelling/"pronuncation" of her name. So, could anybody explain what's up with the argument that "Hrotsuit" is the "proper pronuncation"? Because if not, I'll remove that sentence fragment. Duivelwaan (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hrotsvitha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030506183405/http://www.valpo.edu/home/staff/kinnes/medieval/hroswitha.html to http://www.valpo.edu/home/staff/kinnes/medieval/hroswitha.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.infacto.de/koenigin-editha/html/gestaeditha.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050901055253/http://home.infionline.net/~ddisse/hrotsvit.html to http://home.infionline.net/~ddisse/hrotsvit.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://mdz.bib-bvb.de/digbib/lexika/adb/images/adb029/@ebt-link?target=idmatch(entityref,adb0290285)
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050307003635/http://www.storiamedievale.net/personaggi/rosvita.htm to http://www.storiamedievale.net/personaggi/rosvita.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)