Talk:Sor Juana
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think "Hombres necios" actually is "Redondillas". That's the name I've seen most frequently, including at: http://wikisource.org/wiki/Redondillas
[edit] Added material
This article seemed to lack information surrounding the last years of Sor Juana's life, so I added some today 9th July 2005. The information is adapted from a web resource (www.latin-american.cam.ac.uk/SorJuana/) which I authored, and I am happy to release the text of this into the public domain. -Geoffrey Kantaris
[edit] Link
I added a link for examples in English. I fully appreciate, and infact, prefer to have poetry in the original language en face. Nonetheless, that doesn't change the fact that I don't know Spanish! I was familiar with the other links and know them to be excellent resources to the Spanish scholar, but English translations were sparse for the general reader like me. Perhaps such a scholar might donate their translation of a notable example of her work/s here? Also, might someone upload the famous painting of her here? Khirad 01:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Mexican but Spanish
I strongly disagree with this article mentioning Sor Juana as a Mexican Scholar. In her era, Mexico was fully colonised by Spain and was considered a province, and therefor, part of the Spanish Kingdom. Her father was basque and her mother was mexican creole. Besides, Mexico was known as "Nueva España" or "New Spain", whose territories included today's Mexico, Central America as far south as Costa Rica, and the area comprising today's southwestern United States. This means that if she would have been born in Costa Rica, she would also have been considered born in the mexican province of Spain.
In the spanish version of this article in Wikipedia, this matter is mentioned saying that, being mexican, she is considered to be a Novohispanic, therefor, can be also considered spanish.
Saying that she was mexican, and not mentioning that it was a province of Spain or mention her spanish origin can confuse the reader and make him believe that Mexico was a state during Sor Juana's period. It would be like saying that the roman emperor Trajan was spanish: how could that be if Spain was a province of Rome and wasn't a State?
- Actually you are being a bit misleading too: New Spain was a colony of Spain, but not strictly speaking part of the Spanish Kingdom. In an gross simplification, it was more like two different countries in personal union under a single King. Your comparison with Trajan is not appropriate since by the time he was born most free men had Roman citizenship automatically, be that at Rome or at the provinces. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, Spanish History is quite complex, if I used the term of Spain is because people are not usually acquainted with its History. Spain was not Spain, but several kingdoms under the same kings: the Catholic Kings were the first kings who held the crown of all the kingdoms of the Iberian peninsula except that of Portugal. Every kingdom was more or less independent. King Ferdinand was strictly the King of Aragon, and Isabella was queen of Castille. Those were the main kingdoms: in the Kingdom of Aragón the nobles were stronger than the king while the Kingdom of Castille was dominated by the king (in this case, the queen). So when Colón came to the Catholic Kings, it was Castille the one who invested all the money and made later claim on the Indies (later America). New Spain was a wide territory that occupied further than actual Mexico, and its stablishment lasted from 1535 to 1812. The territory was anexionated in 1519 to the kingdom of Castille according to the documents of the Indies Archives in Seville, making of it a province of Castille. The ruling laws of the province were written in Castille, who had control over every aspect of life in the New World. Those laws were known as the Laws of Indies (leyes de Indias) and named all the indigenous people subjects (not slaves) of the kingdom of Castille. The government of the Indies was orchestrated by the Council of the Indies (Consejo de Indias), who guided the king on matters retaled to the New World. At the light of this information, New Spain was not a state, as you mentioned, with the same king as Castille and Aragon, but a province and part of Castille. So Sor Juana Inés was born in New Spain, which made her a Novohispanic, in the area that we now know as the State of Mexico. Her cultural background was not indigenous, since her mother was creole and her father was a spanish basque. She was raised up by her grandfather who was also spanish and she read the books of the Spanish Golden Era. My comparison to Trajan is because radical spanish nationalists claim that Spain was already Spain when Trajan was alive, and therefor he was a spanish emperor. As you pointed out, it's a wrong idea, but their intentions towards the appropriation of Trajan as a spanish character has the same political (nationalist) background as that of the ones who claim plainly that Sor Juana was mexican, without mentioning the fact that her background was overwhelmingly spanish, not indigenous, and that she spent most of her life surrounded by spanish nobles in Mexico City. Many ommit the fact that her mother was a creole, and only point out that she was mexican. In the future, this creole society will be the one leading revolutions all around America, but that was not the case in Sor Juana's time. According to this information, it's a mistake to say or claim that Sor Juana was just Mexican. Nemi |11:11 21 june 2006
- That's why I said it was a gross simplification ;-) I'd say she can't be considered fully Spanish since creoles did not have the same rights as their parents did in Spain. Even in New Spain their rights were limited (although nowhere close to the limitation of rights indians had to suffer) since, for instance, higher offices were reserved to people born in Spain. When it comes to "nationality" as you said, she was truly Novohispanic, with a strong Spanish cultural background. However that does not necessarily make her Spanish by extension since in Spain she'd have been a second-class citizen at best. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
You said the word yourself, novohispanic, that would have suit her better. I have no knowledge that spanish creoles had different rights than that of a iberian spanish, i think you are wrong there. Of course, the fact that all the governors or relevant positions in the government of New Spain were given to spanish born in Spain (castille and kingdoms) was clear, but that didn't mean the creoles were considered second-class citizens, its just that the king wanted someone he could trust, so he named people close to him. ACtually, it is widely believed that the Spanish Kings tolerated slavery in the Indies, but the truth is they try to fight against it urged by priests like De las Casas (okay, meybe they didn't make enough efforts, since it was so far away and they had more urgent matters at hand); first by giving them the status of subjects of Castille, then reassuring their rights and trying to get rid of slavery. But it was a very difficult job by that time: no tv, no phones, no airplanes...It was just impossible. Do you agree to change the term Mexican to that of Mexican Novohispanic? Nemi
- I think Novohispano is better, even though it doesn't look right (I want to end it with an "a"). And Rune is correct about the social distinction between the Spanish-born and American-born Novohispanos, even those of pure Spanish blood. They thought that there was something inferior about the very air or land (or something--sorry, I don't recall exactly).
- The other issue is one of patrimony. Mexicans consider Sor Juana part of their cultural and literary heritage. In fact, they tend to consider all of Mexican history, including that of Pre-Columbian peoples, "Mexican history", even though the use of the word "Mexico" didn't become official until Independence. Some articles about colonial-era Mexicans call their subjects "Novohispano" and some say "Mexican". I suppose we should standardize this. But IMO, there is no need for the categorization to reflect the subtle distinction between New Spain and Mexico.--Rockero 05:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Rockero, a social distinction is not a law, therefor she was legally a subject of the crown of Castille. Perhaps not de facto, but de iure. That's why I think is correct to call her Novohispanic, and not (only)mexican nor spanish (I give you your point there, Rune). Mainly because it gives the reader information on her background. Of course since she was born in Mexico, she ought to appear in Mexico's History. Actually, since she is not "fully spanish", I haven't heard too much of her in my literature classes in Spain, intellectuals here tend always to "forget" women no matter how good and outstanding they are. So I am very glad to know that Mexico is taking care of her memmory, giving her the place she deserves. I guess the use of the term History of Mexico describes more the History of a geographic area. In Spain we tend to consider History of Spain anything that happened in the Iberian Peninsula (excluding Portugal), although we can only speak of Spain (legally) from 1712. Most of the time geography, History and state do not coincide. But just imagine how difficult would it be to call a subject: "History of the people who lived in the area now called Spain during the VI c. BC". ;) This has been by far the most civilized discussion I have had in many years. Thank you! Nemi
