Talk:Hortus conclusus
 | A fact from Hortus conclusus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 June 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,625 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Issues
editI'm not NEARLY sure enough about this to change anything. But, in both places where this article refers to the Immaculate Conception (Mary, at HER conception, being free of original sin), does it actually mean to refer to virginal conception (Mary being a virgin; Jesus being conceived supernaturally)? Mary being in a walled garden, or being herself a walled garden, seems more applicable to her own virginity than to her freedom from original sin. On the other hand, the article refers to the "developing doctrine" being illustrated in "late medieval and Renaissance art," and virginal conception was firmly established doctrine LONG before the late medieval period (whereas that time frame appears correct for the formation of the Immaculate Conception doctrine).
Maybe some clarification is needed? Mary being a walled garden symbolizes her Immaculate Conception because she was never touched by sin (NOT it symbolizes the virginal conception because she was never touched sexually)?
71.91.124.229 (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- You may have a point here - Schiller does not mention the IC, but she is only dealing with the subject of the Annunciation, though she does mention that the low wall served to keep Satan out. The treatment in the article gets support here. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think it is clear both sets of meanings apply, but I have rejigged the text to clarify the difference between them. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- You may have a point here - Schiller does not mention the IC, but she is only dealing with the subject of the Annunciation, though she does mention that the low wall served to keep Satan out. The treatment in the article gets support here. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hortus conclusus. 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/20110529140849/http://193.8.230.138/etexts/www/Bible/Song_of_Solomon.html to http://193.8.230.138/etexts/www/Bible/Song_of_Solomon.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070825190646/http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue1/article2.htm to http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue1/article2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)