> Once again: A tossup that no one gets is, empirically, too hard.
Whether
> people SHOULD know the answer is irrelevant.
Empirically? Perhaps. But in the absence of documented evidence
that people do not know who Hroswitha was, you can't expect someone
to just intuit that nobody will. Hroswitha is pretty major -- at
least as major as some authors who have become QB canon. It is not
<i>a priori</i> unreasonable to expect that people who are answering
questions on Hildegarde of Bingen and other comparable figures on a
regular basis might have some clue of who she is -- unless, of
course, some of them are in fact getting the majority of
their "knowledge" out of old packets.
Now that the question has been asked and not answered, it's easy to
say that it was too difficult, but before that has happened? Not so
much.
Well, except that now Hroswitha's got publicity, so you might as well
write all the questions you want.
(Disclaimers: I haven't read the packet in question; I agree that she
might have been better off as a bonus part; my question-writing
admittedly tends to skew hard on lit and incompetent on most other
things. I don't speak for anyone.)
-- ECN