Talk:Christine de Pizan

message: Some parts of this article read more like a persuasive paper than an encyclopedic article. --Fang Aili 17:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Hope no one minds. Geuiwogbil 00:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I know that her name is a transliteration of French, but is it correctly Pisan or Pizan?  The article is inconsistant as to which is preferred or correct.
: Indeed.  I've only ever seen it as Pisan elsewhere, although Pizan seems to have some mentions in the literature.   We at least need to be consistent throughout our article.  I've changed all Pisans to Pizans.  JackofOz 10:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I, too, have seen it written almost exclusively as "Pisan" but would rather have a consistant spelling. Where I do see variation (in a fairly even split) is in calling her "of Pisan" or "de Pisan," though given Wikipedia's preference for calling everything by their English names — Mary Queen of Scots married François II of France, here called Francis II of France — I think it's setteled on an "of."  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 19:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In that regard, since it's not a true surname, she also ought not to be referred to (as she is in the article, repeatedly) as just "De Pizan" but as "Christine." --Michael K SmithTalk  17:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

text: As with the date discrepancies (I mentioned some below on the talk page), there's a lot of issues with things not matching up in the article--she was an extremely prolific writer and one source (I admit I forget whom, but I'll dig it up) quoted one of her works, which stated roughly that in six years, between 1397 and 1403, she wrote fifteen important books (disregarding minor essays) and that her collected works from that time, compiled, would fill seventy large copy-books. It doesn't seem to agree with the article's statement in the second paragraph unless they're only counting major works or books?  It more closely agrees with the "over 300" number, but at the same time I don't know of any concrete statistics of that, either. I'll keep looking. Tehae (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pizan or Pisan 

message: I could have sworn Etienne du Castel was a castle not a man's name. Are the writer's of this page sure that was his name?
Heri Larien 01:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Etienne du Castel is/was not a castle, though it would seem like a logical assumption if you haven't taken any French.  Étienne is the French form of the name "Stephen," and du translates as "of the" when preceeding masculine nouns (de, "of", + le, "the").  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 22:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her Husband? 

message: Been poking around in researching her life and it seems her date of birth is somewhat contested (even on the French Wikipedia it's given as both 1363 and 1364, in different places; there was at least one source that I found that suggested 1365 instead), as is her date of death (as nothing was heard from her after her work on Joan of Arc, published in July of 1429). Not sure if anyone has any more concrete sources for any of these topics? I'll keep looking and see if I can amend the article as necessary.
Regardless, the math doesn't add up--if she was born in 1363 and married at age fifteen to Etienne, then she would be married in 1378, not 1380 (since Charles died late 1380, I suppose they would have married earlier in the year... Even if she was born late in 1363 it would still mean 1378 or early 1379 as a wedding year if she was fifteen at the time of marriage). Similarly if she was born in 1364, her marriage would have been in 1379 instead (as French Wikipedia suggests)... Although again I've got no concrete sources on that other than consensus that she was married at fifteen, although Willard suggests they married in 1980.  If she was widowed at the age of 24 in 1390, then that would mean she was born in 1366; some sources argue her husband died in 1389 instead (meaning a birthdate of 1365, should she have been widowed at age 24), although French Wikipedia concurs with the date of 1390.
I don't suppose anyone could shed some light on this matter? Or would it be something that should be smoothed out in the article (eg: remove vague age references if concrete dates are available that conflict with said age references)? Tehae (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date conflicts? 

message: Hi all,
A possibly useful resource - there was a five-year academic project to produce a digital edition of the Queen's Manuscript (BL Harley MS. 4431), a comprehensive collected work prepared for Isabeau of Bavaria under de Pizan's supervision, c. 1414. (The "presents her book" illustration here is taken from the MS). As well as many smaller works, it includes a full (?) copy of Le livre de la cité des dames.
* Manuscript gallery
* Transcriptions of individual works
I'm currently working with the BL and the AHRC (the funders of the project), hence why I'm leaving this note here rather than just adding the links; any objection to my adding one or both to the external links? Andrew Gray (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested resources 

message: This (generally excellent) article contains one significant error that I noticed: it repeatedly refers to Christine de Pizan as "Pizan." 
This would of course be correct with a modern author, for example Michel Foucault would shorten to "Foucault" rather than "Michel." However, the convention among scholars of the Middle Ages is to refer to medieval authors by their given names only, since "Pizan" expresses nothing other than a place (Pizanno), and creates confusion with sentences of the type "Pizanno is a beautiful place." One can see an example of this usage on the Wikipedia page for another famous medieval author, Chrétien de Troyes, who is correctly named as "Chrétien": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chr%C3%A9tien_de_Troyes
If editors of this page do not object, I will make the change. My apologies if it is not the usual protocol to make a note like this first, I have never edited Wikipedia before.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReinardusVulpes (talk • contribs) 20:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument is correct, so I suggest you go ahead and make the change – see WP:BOLD. (On the other hand, if you're uncertain of a change, it's always a good idea to raise the issue on the Talk page first, so you have done the right thing.) Another well-known name of this type, incidentally, is Leonardo da Vinci, and I see that his article has a hatnote explicitly making the point that he is properly referred to as Leonardo; but it's supplied by a special template which wouldn't work here, and I'm not sure if there's a counterpart that would. If anyone knows anything more about this, could you let us know. 01:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christine's name 

message: Last sentence "...the political events reverenced in the illuminations..."  Either would have some meaning! Incidentally, this Google preview text is described as the 2010 book (ISBN 0-271-04557-4), but the copy part-reproduced appears to be a 2008 version (ISBN 0-271-03397-6), which has an Introduction, but no Preface - apparently a different text. Davidships (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverenced or referenced? 

message: Under the Works heading, the second paragraph states, "Christine claimed that Meun's views were misogynistic, vulgar, immoral, and slanderous to women. The exchange between the two authors involved them sending each other their treatises, defending their respective views. At the height of the exchange Christine published Querelle du Roman de la Rose (Letters on the Debate of the Rose)."
According to Jean de Meun's Wikipedia page, he lived from 1240-1305. Christine de Pizan lived from 1364-1430, according to her page. Unless I'm missing something, I'm not sure how they would have exchanged views with one another since Christine was born 60 years after Jean's death.
205.236.56.99 (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for spotting the error. That's a paraphrase from a source ("Center for Feminist Art") which, I suspect, was written by someone who isn't a historian and therefore shouldn't have been used in this article. There seem to be many bad sources in this article, which is in need of a thorough cleaning to bring it in line with history.  AgeOfPlantagenet (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christine and Jean 

message: This edit was reverted - first because ostensibly it did not include sources. But when sources were added, it suddenly became a "political interpretation" that does not belong in the intro section. It seems that the fact that de Pizan has become a pretty major topic in academia these past few decades AS the first feminist writer is relevant, certainly more so than a couple of names of patrons, which somehow passed muster. The topic is spread throughout the article, and is in the sources (basically all articles from the past two decades about de Pizan refer to her this way) but is not addressed directly. It probably should have its own section, or at least a paragraph... in which case it would also belong in the summary. But in no case should the information be eliminated. KikuTheKat (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  First feminist writer 

message: Born in 1364, lived into the 1430s, yet she died at age 15-16. Doesn't quite agree, does it? 2A02:AA1:162A:DA5C:9D79:EFB1:8373:7640 (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct. Someone messed up with the date of death. As it happens, 1380-1364 is 16 indeed. Fixed, thanks. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of death