Respuesta a Sor Filotea de la Cruz
The Respuesta a Sor Filotea de la Cruz (German answer to Sor Filotea de la Cruz ) is a letter from the early modern period, which is theologically dedicated to the education of women . It is argued that science and humanities studies and publications by women are permissible.
history
The letter was written by the Mexican nun ("Sor") Juana Inés de la Cruz and marks the end of a theological controversy that eventually led to her falling silent and withdrawing from public life. Her work Crisis sobre un sermón , written between 1687 and 1690 and containing a criticism of a sermon by the popular Jesuit Father António Vieira , was published in 1690 by the bishop of Puebla , Manuel Fernández de Santa Cruz under the title Carta Atenagórica and with one under the Pseudonym Sor Filotea: On March 1, 1691, Sor Juana Inés replied to this treatise in letter form, which deals critically with the education of women; However, the text was only published posthumously in 1700 in their Fama y obras póstumas del Fénix de México (Madrid: Manuel Ruiz de Murga).
The Carta de Sor Filotea de la Cruz
Formally, the letter stands out primarily because of the choice of the female speaker-self: the criticism is staged here as one among equals, so that the influence is veiled by the superiors. Sor Juana's exceptional position is tied primarily to her striving for secular education, while the fictional letter writer wants her to be limited to edifying and spiritual questions. This idea of exchange among women accompanies the recipient throughout the reading, since the female speaker-ego remains present not only through the pseudonym, but also through the gender-dependent endings of Spanish.
Sor Filotea's letter revolves around two points of criticism: First, the spokeswoman asks to what extent women’s education is desirable at all, and then what kind of texts should be written. On the question of women's education, she appeals to two ecclesiastical authorities who hold apparently contradicting positions: the church father Jerome , to whom the Sor Juanas monastery was also consecrated and who promoted female studies, and Paul , who demanded that women be silent in the community . The letter writer finally follows the latter and speaks out against a better education of women, as these, according to contemporary misogynous discourses, tend to vanity, arrogance and curiosity and this problem would only be exacerbated by education. Instead, they should practice obedience as servants of the man, because knowledge does not help to lead a godly life, but humility does. The speaker differentiates between two types of knowledge: that which leads to pride and that which leads to obedience, the latter serving to bind the mind. Ultimately, however, the pursuit of secular education is generally called into question, since everything worth knowing is in the Bible and is thus conveyed through God, that is, through theology.
When it comes to the question of the literature to be written, the speaker speaks out against secular poetry, which is interesting in and of itself, as the argument was sparked off by a theological text. On a formal level, the wisdom of the content should be combined with the clarity of the words in literature; In terms of content, she speaks out against secular verses because they are sinful. The subjects of literature are the hagiography of saints and the kingdom of God ; in this context the verse form is also permissible. Knowledge should therefore be renounced in favor of glorification and art in favor of God.
The Respuesta de la Sor Filotea de la Cruz
style
Like the Carta de Sor Filotea de la Cruz , the Respuesta de la poetisa a la muy ilustre Sor Filotea de la Cruz is written in a very personal letter style that leaves the recipients of the treatises in the role of the audience. On the rhetorical level, this speaking attitude is underlined by the repeated address as Señora mía and the repeatedly recurring pronounced personal pronoun yo , whereby a hierarchical gradient is also indicated in the context of the modesty topic , for example by addresses such as venerable Señora . As in the Carta , on the one hand the gender of the participants is always evident, on the other hand the yo also underlines the individual approach of the argument.
Content and interpretation
All in all, the letter is a strictly composed work committed to theological discourse, in which the focus is less on literature as such than on the question of the legitimacy of secular education and female voices and which primarily serves to address the issue of the Sor Filotea refuted allegations in every single point. The biographical explanations are also subordinate to this purpose, so that it seems questionable whether this information really has to be understood as historical or not more as metaphorical.
The reply letter thus deals with the issue of women's education from a seemingly personal perspective. She refers to several deadly sins . The speaker mainly refers to her own experiences and presents her life story as an example of God's work on the human spirit. However, she does not stop at tracing her thirst for knowledge only to divine intervention, but also notes its positive effects: Even as a child this helped her to conquer the cravings (queso / cheese) and vanity (pelo / hair), and she would be out Dislike of marriage went to the monastery and would have taken a great deal of hardship and privation for her education. Theologically speaking, she left the gula ( gluttony ), superbia ( arrogance ) and acedia ( laziness ) behind as a child and was exempt from luxuria ( lust ) as an adolescent . The positive influence of her reading continues in the monastery as well: She is generous to her fellow sisters, does not work for fame or recognition ( Avaritia : greed ) and humbly meets her envious people ( ira : anger ). In this context, the rather detailed depiction of envy appears to be of particular interest. Not only is the invidia ( envy ) the only mortal sin that is completely alien to the speaker and therefore does not have to be overcome, in addition, a parallel is made between it and the Son of God, which at least seems daring. Overall, this passage must be understood as a refutation of Sor Filotea's allegation that education would reinforce negative female traits.
The question of the use and origin of non-theological teaching is discussed regardless of the gender of the researcher. The speaker refers to nature as God's creation, which needs to be deciphered just like the Bible. For this purpose, reference is made to the entire spectrum of the early modern sciences, starting with rhetoric, grammar and knowledge of ancient languages, through arithmetic and geometry , physics , astrology and music, architecture, history and law to handicrafts and cooking. The understanding of the world and God are parallelized in this way.
For this reason, the thirst for knowledge and the mind must come from God as well as the physical world, and these are the keys to understanding divine creation. The letter writer's striving for knowledge is therefore an expression of her love for God, who does not want man to wander through the world ignorant, as is demonstrated by the example of the threefold denial of Christ by Peter. Thinking can also be turned off neither in men nor in women. At this point, the speaker also refers to exemplary wise women of history, starting with the ancient and biblical characters such as the Sibyls and the Queen of Sheba to the Christian saints such as Santa Teresa and Gertrudis.
The spokeswoman also emphasized the advantages that educated older women would have for society, as the young girls would then no longer have to be placed in the care of men for their upbringing, so that there would be no opportunity for unchastity, and education also protects against mistakes. Since the letter writer also rejects sermons or public teaching by women, there would be no risk of possible errors, since written treatises are subject to scrutiny and can be withdrawn from circulation before they cause harm. Male erudition and arrogance would pose far more danger, as could be shown, for example, by the effects of the teachings of Martin Luther and other heretics.
However, the theological argument is not only implicit, it is also conducted openly: the spokeswoman, like Sor Filotea, tries to find a consensus between the various views on women's education represented in the Bible, the Catholic Church and the Church Fathers by mainly using the Instructions of an educational counselor for girls from St. Jerome - the patron saint of their monastery - seeks to reconcile with the repeatedly quoted words of Paul Mulieres in Ecclesiis taceant - women should be silent in the church. In view of women who write, however, she interprets the sentence literally: Women should not preach in the church - writing is permitted, because the church would not have forbidden either, que escriba una Gertrudis, una Teresa, una Brígida, la monja de Ágreda y otras muchas ( "that a Gertrude , a Theresa , a Brigida , the nun from Agreda and many others write"). A similar procedure is followed when it comes to the question of the form of the verse: Here, too, the speaker mentions biblical models, the psalms, the sacred chants and, last but not least, David as a poet and concludes that it must therefore be a godly spelling.
Secular and spiritual poetry merely refer to different production and reception conditions, whereby sacred literature is understood to be significantly more valuable. In awe of theological questions, the speaker therefore turns to the lower genre, which appears to be more suitable for her gender and age. In addition, these asuntos profanos (worldly things) do not have the potential of false doctrines, the only danger is the laughter of the audience. She also wrote some edification pamphlets for the nuns, which, like most of her work, were not intended for the public. These explanations are accompanied by a topical of modesty, which defines all literary works except for Sueño as commissioned work: Demás, que yo nunca he escrito cosa alguna por mi voluntad, sino por ruegos y preceptos ajenos; de tal manera, que no me acuerdo haber escrito por mi gusto sino es un papelillo que llaman 'El Sueño' (" Nor do I remember ever having written anything for my own pleasure except for a small, insignificant font called El Sueño.) Der The reference to her second work on the insatiable desire for knowledge is particularly interesting in this context, since the focus here is once again on the speaker's personal experiences.
expenditure
Respuesta a Sor Filotea de la Cruz. In: Obras Completas de Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz IV: Comedias, sainetes y prosa. Edited by Alberto G. Salceda, Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Economica 1957.
German editions:
- The answer to Sister Philothea. Translated from the Spanish by Hildegard Heredia. With an essay by Angelo Morino. publishing house new criticism, Frankfurt am Main 1991.
- First dream. With the answer to Sister Philothea de la Cruz. Preface by Octavio Paz. From the Spanish by Fritz Vogelsang. Insel, Frankfurt am Main 1993.
Secondary literature
- Christopher F. Laferl: Nun and Scholar. In: Birgit Wagner und ders .: Claim to the word: Gender, knowledge and writing in the 17th century. Sor Juana Celeste and Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. Facultas, Vienna 2002, pp. 71–126.
- Stephanie Merrim: Early modern women's writing and Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. Vanderbilt Univ. Press, Nashville 1999.
- Angelo Morino: Sor Juana de la Cruz or the story of an impossible adventure. In: Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz: The answer to Sister Philothea. New Critique Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 1991, pp. 77–135.
- Barbara Schuchard: 'Emancipation' with Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. In: files of the German Hispanic Day. Focus on 'Siglo de Oro'. Edited by Hans-Josef Niederehe. Wolfenbüttel February 28 - March 1, 1985. Hamburg: Buske 1986 (= Romance Studies in Past and Present; 20), pp. 149–166.
- Hans-Otto Dill: El primer Yo latinoamericano es femenino: a los 350 años del nacimiento de Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. In: Taller de Letras , Revista del Instituto de Letras 29/2001, pp. 101-113.
- La creatividad femenina y las trampas del poder. María de Zayas, Isabel Correa, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. Edited by Monika Bosse, Barbara Potthast and André Stoll. Edition Reichenberger, Kassel 1997.
- Heinrich Merkl: Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. A research report 1951–1981. Winter, Heidelberg 1986 (= Studia Romanica; 65).
- Heinrich Merkl: Sor Juana, Pfandl, y la mujer masculina. In: Actas del V Congreso de la Asociación Internacional Siglo de Oro. Münster 1999. Edited by Christoph Strosetzki. Vervuert / Iberoamericana, Frankfurt am Main / Madrid 2001, pp. 905–913.
- Octavio Paz: Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz o las trampas de la fe. 3rd ed. Seix Barral, Barcelona 1989 (German: Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz or The Pitfalls of Faith. Suhrkamp, 1994).
- Pink mother-of-pearl : Los límites de la femineidad en sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. Estrategias retóricas y recepción literaria. Vervuert / Iberoamericana, Frankfurt am Main / Madrid 2004.
- Sor Juana y su mundo. Una mirada actual. Edited by Sara Poot Herrera. Investigación y textos José Rogelio Álvarez. Univ. del Claustro de Sor Juana, Mexico 1995.
Individual evidence
- ↑ Biography Filotea de la Cruz (Engl.) , Poets.org
- ^ Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz: Respuesta a Sor Filotea de la Cruz. In: Obras Completas de Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz IV: Comedias, sainetes y prosa. Edited by Alberto G. Salceda, Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Economica 1957, p. 441.
- ↑ Respuesta [note 1], p. 445.
- ↑ Respuesta [note 1], p. 446.
- ↑ Respuesta [note 1], pp. 462, 465, 467.
- ↑ Respuesta [note 1], p. 467.
- ↑ Respuesta [note 1], p. 470.
- ^ Based on the translation by Hildegard Heredia, p. 68.