Talk:Ecstasy of St Theresa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

I am attempting to locate the exact inscription on the base of the statue. Help?

Contents 1 Book Reference? 2 Removal of sculpture? 3 Biased? 4 Theresa v. Teresa 5 St or St.

[edit] Book Reference?

Is it really necessary to mention a fictional reference of the work from a contemporary novel?

I second a vote for its removal. -Caravaggisti

Agreed.

Keep - Assuming that this discussion is about the "See also" link to Dan Brown's book Angels and Demons, I think the link is entirely appropriate. The best-selling novel has been the primary vehicle for the popularizing of the sculpture, and has resulted in a massive increase in interest and tourism. Indeed, I think it would be worth adding a section to this page, especially to discuss the "fact and fiction" of the novel, since it makes some incorrect statements about the sculpture's history. It is very likely that many people will be consulting Wikipedia to check whether or not the facts are correct. Elonka 19:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Elonka that we should keep the mention of the fictional reference. I do think it is important point in the history of this work and society's relationship with it. Johntex\^talk 18:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of sculpture?

I remember reading somewhere that this sculpture was first placed somewhere else (the vatican?) and removed. Can anyone confirm this? (Posted 12:47, April 30, 2006 by ImmaculateHeart)

That theory was an entirely fictional one, used as part of the novel The Da Vinci Code. It has no basis in fact. The truth is that the sculpture was commissioned for its exact location, in the Cornaro Chapel, by the Cornaro family. --Elonka 19:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased?

"Titillating as such theory may be, however, most serious scholars...doubt that Bernini...consciously intended to depict an episode of lust fufilled. " This sentence needs at least one reference, if one is to say that "...most serious scholars...". Who are these scholars? Please reference. If there is a serious (although to my mind, pedantic and meaningless) debate as to whether or not this sculputure depicts a spiritual versus a physical orgasm, then there needs to be references for both sides. This article seems to be one person's point of view. (Posted 02:40, May 22, 2006 by 72.234.218.195)

I agree, this article is written in a very snobby way, it seems to be focused on telling off theories of what the statue is depicting. TostitosAreGross 10:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that acuracy and footnoting are essential aspects to an article. However, a little tinge of being opinionated can spice things up a bit. UTC, stop being so harsh on our colleague. Thankyou kindly for your article. AB

Yes, no doubt violating Wikipedia policy left and right can "spice things up a bit". -- Jibal 11:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a reference to a passage from Robert Harbison's Reflections on Baroque that perhaps substantiates this claim: "It is an astonishing passage that the post-Freudian reader cannot help sniggering at -- doesn't the nun realize she is describing mainly sexual longings? Indeed, a few lines later she recognizes that it is like bodily seduction, but only as an opening or avenue for another kind of experience. Human sexuality or even the senses cannot have the primacy for Teresa or Bernini which they do for us. The shocking reciprocal movement which grabs our attention so forcibly is not intended a sensational; it aims to jar us into another place entirely."(harbison, r. p23) 134.10.12.39 11:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I will sound like an uneducated oaf, but this entire section is wildly over-the-top with its vocabulary. I'm certainly not advocating the excision of the ideas and views presented, but could it be rewritten in a more accessible way?

The discussion in the article is a good example of what Simon Schama in his recent TV series called "ignoring the blindingly obvious". (MS, this sentence only) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.235.154 (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theresa v. Teresa

It is spelled different ways in the title and content of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.116.83 (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St or St.

Is there a particular reason for the lack of a period after St in the title? It seems to contradict common language convictions. Lefteh (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)