Talk:Juana Inés de la Cruz

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): Hroitberg. Peer reviewers: Jbouchie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Additional Source
One page 168 of this book, it contains a quote from Sor Juana that she wished to dress as a boy and attend university when she was 6 or 7, not 16. A few pages later it explains the attack on her interest in science. http://books.google.com/books?id=8cCIcUaEznYC&dq=juana+de+la+cruz&source=gbs_navlinks_s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.136.180 (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Query about translation of words
I think "Hombres necios" actually is "Redondillas". That's the name I've seen most frequently, including at: http://wikisource.org/wiki/Redondillas

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

I think somebody has been vandalizing this page. In the second paragraph of her biography I read "Fortunately for Sor Juana at first she incurred the pleasure of the Catholic Church." This doesn't make sense, but not knowing anything about the subject I am hesitant to change it back myself. Anna Lowenstein —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.19.87 (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The page says in the movie that a lesbian relationship is strongly suggested. is this vandalism or is there any hints that she was a lesbian in her life. if she was i recommend putting it in. i also have removed it until it has been proven--65.175.193.146 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello: I am not sure how to add to the discussion technically, it appears others have separate sections here, but I cant find the right button to make that happen, so I hope this is how it works: Today is Feb 22, 2009. I went in and smoothed the language and did small deletes and adds. I am a Catholic and a scholar who has published references to Sor Juana. There is a banner on the Sor Juana wiki page which I do not understand about the material reading like an advertisment. I find that puzzling, at least when I arrived for the first time tonight. I saw the material on the site, which is essentially written, I think, by a heartfelt person (It is REALLY hard to write a perfect first draft let alone a perfect revision to the nth try). There need be more citations, but the story of her life, is a biography. And, a biography is many things and has wide vairations in structure, but most of all, it is a story that has protagonist, antagonists, crises and lyses. That's not, I dont think an advertisment. But perhaps someone here knows more about marketing than I do. I think more can be added to the story, especially Sor Juana's retort to the archbishop for which she is greatly admired by many. But, here, tonight, all I wanted to try to contribute was to make the language flow more smoothly. I hope that helps a little along the way. --Dr. CP Estés

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)

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. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 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. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 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)


 * I don't mind calling her "Novohispanic" at all. I was just trying to make my case of why she wouldn't be Spanish either (the title of this section is "Mexican but Spanish" after all). -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 13:37, 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!

I just want to add that IF indeed these regions were New Spain (or other vice-royal lands) then how come Inca Garcilaso de la Vega is considered "Peruvian"...he was born during the same time period; so, shouldn't he be considered "Novohispano" (which I think should be Neo-Spaniard)? Or is there a very subtle bit of racism here? I mean, if we are going to get technical, then we should also be consistent. Technically, el Inca Garcilaso, even if the product of miscegenation, was born on Neo-Spanish soil.

Rockero is right, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz is in Mexican literature. She also appears on the 200 pesos bills (the second highest nomination afer 500 pesos). Mexican history include the cultures that were already there when Spain conquered the Aztec Empire. Some of these cultures include the Aztecs, the Mayans, the Olmecs, the Toltecs, and many other smaller cutures who settled within the geographic area that today represents Mexico. Cuahutemoc for instance, the last Aztec emperor appears on the 100 pesos bills. [Alex] 13 February 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.118.135 (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

American but British
So, was Washington a British?

category Muses
Why was Sor Juana added to category Muses? I'm inclined to remove but won't without discussion. --lquilter 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently she has the nickname "The Tenth Muse" or some such.--168.122.247.15 (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Needs Lots of Work
There are many problems with this article, both of fact, interpretation and - especially - omission. I teach a unit on Sor Juana three times a year, and I plan to share this present article with some students and ask them to suggest revisions and additions. Meanwhile, the discussion over whether to call her Basque, Spanish or Mexican seems divorced from the context of her rich life lived entirely within, first, a small community in central Mexico and, later, the capital. Basque folks may want to add her father to their biographical work, but there is little evidence that he was an important influence in her life. Although she seems to have wanted to obscure her mother's status, most scholars believe Juana was illegitimate. The births of her half-sisters in 1658 and 1659, and her removal to live with maternal relatives in Mexico City the following year, do not suggest much Basque connection. Even more strange is discussion of her identity without reference to her own voice (poems, plays and prose). I cannot imagine anyone reading her work and concluding she was anything but Mexican, although heavily influenced by her four years living within the viceregal household. Her devotion to learning provided her with knowledge of Greek, Latin, Ecclesiastical and contemporary European literature (hardly the formation of a provincial Iberian), but she cared passionately about Mexican social and cultural issues. One could make a better argument that she was "African" (I'm not suggesting we do so), since she had her own Afro-Mexican slave/servant/companion in the convent. Bill Bollinger

The entire section dedicated to Literary Criticism is straight from the jacket cover description of the translation of Octavio Paz's book (please check the following site to see: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0674821068/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books). While much of it may be true, I find the use of material designed to sell the book questionable, not objective. Paul Fallon —Preceding unsigned comment added by BorderNC (talk • contribs) 20:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor revisions, and plea for more contributions
I have added an introductory line in the first paragraph clarifying that Sor Juana is generally seen nowadays (and taught in high school and college classes) as a Mexican writer. This is consonant with the article on Mexican literature in Wikipedia, which even includes an image of Sor Juana. I do not mean to disrespect the above debate, but it is also not useful to deny how she is seen. Instead of debating here, please spend more time rewriting the "Life" section, which is quite deficient.--Lawrlafo (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Life and Literary Production section too long, disorganized
As the subject line reads, the named section contains information that would fit in better if placed in the Literary Criticism section of the article. I also noticed that the article is written in a tone that is biased for the subject, as it uses such adjectives and phrases as "gifted" and "deep natural lyricism"--words that clearly carry positive connotations. Therefore, this article should be rewritten in a neutral tone and reorganized so all information pertaining to her literary works is found in a section separate from her biographical information. -71.133.163.6 (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mathematician
I have removed her description as a mathematician. Although the accompanying reference also calls her a "mathematician", it has no description of exactly what mathematical results are due to her. I hesitate to call anyone who doesn't have at least one original mathematical result a "mathematician", so I would greatly appreciate any references that highlight her mathematical work. Swap (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography of Sor Juana
Why not including a bibliographic list of Sor Juana's works? She was a prolific author and I think it's important to list her works, what are the only way we can know her thoughts now.
 * Well, that's usually what we do. We need to compile and post a list of Juana Inés de la Cruz's works. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Film
Why no mention of the film about her?


 * I, the Worst of All (1990)

Brangifer (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz
Hello! I wonder whether the right title for the article is "Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, O.S.H.". I think that if we are using her name as a professed nun we should also use her title as a sister (Sor) and her order's initials (Order of Saint Jerome) to be faithful to the style of a professed nun. Lwyx (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Legacy
Under her "Legacy," the dramatic poem Reverse Thunder by Diane Ackerman (1988) should be mentioned. Sr. Juana Ines de la Cruz is the main character of the book-length poem. The book is cited here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Ackerman 2001:5B0:25FF:2EF0:0:0:0:3B (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Removed image
There was a, claimed to be from the late 17th century, which I have removed from the article. The discussion to remove the image from Wikimedia is ongoing with this. The claim is that the painting is contemporary and copyrighted.
 * Later note - I just noticed I didn't sign the above. Either way, the painting was removed from the article and later from Wikimedia due to copyright violation. It was a contemporary painting, not one from her lifetime, so uninteresting for the article and more importantly, not one we had rights to. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Composer
Several composers' categories are applied to this article. Apart from one obscure work attributed to her, I can't find any mention in the article mentioning her compositions, nor any such categories in the Featured Article on the Spanish Wikipedia. I suggest to remove those 5 categories. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * In the Spanish (Español) version of this page, [Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz], they do now mention that she composed a number of Christmas carols ("[villancico]s" in Spanish). -- Pollymarie (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources and neutrality
I noticed that the first source on your reference list is from 1900, and that it provides most of the information on Juana's early life. Would you consider enriching her biographical information with a greater variety of sources, including some more recent ones?

You might also consider revising the introduction to the article so that it is more neutral, and perhaps adding more sources as support. For example, it is stated that Sor Juana "stands at the beginning of the history of Mexican literature," and that she is "an inspiration to artists in the modern era." These could be considered biased viewpoints. Dlevinson1 (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Juana Inés de la Cruz. 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/20100528131605/http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/cruz.html to http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/cruz.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Juana Inés de la Cruz. 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/20110907072707/http://www.banxico.org.mx/billetes-y-monedas/informacion-general/billetes-y-monedas-de-fabricacion-actual/billete-de-200-pesos/pagina-billete-200-pesos.html to http://www.banxico.org.mx/billetes-y-monedas/informacion-general/billetes-y-monedas-de-fabricacion-actual/billete-de-200-pesos/pagina-billete-200-pesos.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Correspondence with Newton
In 2014, the following line was added, which I have now removed:


 * Her interest in scientific thought and experiment led to professional discussions with Isaac Newton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juana_In%C3%A9s_de_la_Cruz&diff=prev&oldid=631320779

The cited reference has a single line about this,


 * [Sor Juana] was also a student of scientific thought and experiment, and corresponded with English scientist Isaac Newton.

There's no further citation about this. This would seem like a pretty big deal! Correspondence between Newton and Sor Juana should be amply documented and we should be able to find the letters, and it should be mentioned by several sources. However, I could find nothing of the sort. I cannot find any mention of Newton in any of Sor Juana's Spanish biographers, nor of Sor Juana in Newton's stuff.

I would love to be proven wrong! If anyone can find a more convincing source, please add more about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordiGH (talk • contribs) 16:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Foolish Men?
Seems odd that what one would think would be her most famous work (at least based on experience) is not mentioned by name even once. Now, this may just be my own personal bias, and obviously one needs sources, but can anyone else confirm/deny my suspicion? --181.115.111.90 (talk) 09:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed edits
Hi, everyone. I'm tasked with editing this page for a university class, and I have a few proposed edits. I'd really like to talk about the interpretation of Sor Juana as an ecofeminist, specifically expanding on the work of Theresa Yugar, who is mentioned briefly in the article. I'd like to add some information about religious feminism/feminist theology as well, possibly using April Young Bennett's work. I'm a little unsure about how to keep the article neutral while adding so much information about feminism. Suggestions, concerns, or criticisms would be much appreciated! Hroitberg (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Hroitberg

inconsistency of listed dates
Not sure if this is right place to post, however, in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_12 listing says: "1651 – Juana Inés de la Cruz, Mexican nun, poet, and scholar (d. 1695)[14]" but in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juana_In%C3%A9s_de_la_Cruz listed as "(12 November 1648 – 17 April 1695)"  Not sure how to correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.84.39 (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Connection to Kahlo
"Sor Juana's decision to cut her hair as punishment for mistakes she made during learning signified her own autonomy, but was also a way to engage in the masculinity expected of male-dominated spaces, like universities."

For one thing, it should be "such as" rather than "like".

But more importantly, this is what Sor Juana, herself, wrote about cutting her own hair (https://archive.org/details/ERIC_ED216942/page/n66/mode/1up): "So intense was my concentration that, although women (especially in the flower of youth) usually cherish the natural beauty of their hair, I would cut my hair off, four or six fingers' length, threatening myself that if I had not mastered such-and-such by the time it grew back, I would cut it off again in punishment for being stupid. It happened that the hair grew quickly but I learned slowly, and so I cut it off to punish my stupidity. It did not seem reasonable to me that a person's head should be crowned with hair if it were so bald of knowledge, which to me was a more desirable adornment."

Because Wikipedia hates original sources, we can't just use her own words to describe why she cut her hair. But, as the quote above demonstrates, she did not attribute the decision to any desire to "engage in masculinity", but as a method to redirect her vanity toward intellectual progress. So instead, this article relies on an academic paper by Paul Allatson that muddles the historical Sor Juana with a fictional version of Sor Juana in the poetry of Pat Mora. See https://www.jstor.org/stable/29741841 pg. 12-14.

Indeed, the whole "Connection to Kahlo" section--except for the last sentence about a day of the dead ceremony--derives from pg. 14 of Allatson's article, in which he states that "the imagery [of Mora's poem] recalls Frieda Kahlo's" self-portrait with short hair. I simply don't see how one commentator's perceived connection between a poem by Mora and a painting by Kahlo justifies an entire section about the historical Sor Juana's connection to the historical Kahlo. There does not appear to be any such connection. I would vote to delete the entire section.2601:241:481:4DC0:20B6:8A60:3FED:9390 (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

...she was forced to sell her collection of books??? Maybe not.
The claim that she was persecuted by her bishop and "forced" to give up her books is based on an essay by an art historian. 7. "Cabrera, Portrait of Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz". Khan Academy. Retrieved 2019-12-05.

Amy Fuller, an actual historian at a UK university, holds a much different view: https://www.historytoday.com/mexican-martyr

I am just getting to know Sor Juana, so I am nowhere close to being qualified to edit the article. -LCP

Contemporary painting of young Juana Inés
A painting by Jorge Sánchez Hernández made around 1980 has been passed as being a 17th century painting of a young Juana Inés. It seems that there is misunderstanding online of the age of this painting so I wanted to inform future editors in case the image is reuploaded.

The painting is not in the public domain and was previously deleted for copyright violation. A cropped version, removing information that identified the painting as contemporary, was reuploaded and added to the article. I've nominated the reuploaded image for deletion.

See this previous deletion discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Juana_In%C3%A9s_de_la_Cruz.jpg

Xochiztli (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Rhetorical Practices from the Ancient World to Enlightenment
— Assignment last updated by Alexrr222 (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Science to Newton
— Assignment last updated by Cher1969 (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)