Talk:Let them eat cake/Archive 1

message: Just an FYI, this page has the words "i like cake" at the bottom in the bibliography.  I think that is vandalism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.57.132 (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Matt

message: First I want to point out that while it is CLAIMED in the article that Marie Antoinette was kind and noble and gracious of the peasants, NOTHING is cited to prove such. The one Antoinette quote that is offered to this end, smacks of sociopathology or her recognition that she would promote her OWN cause, by offering kindness to those who are proving themselves kind to her. There's nothing in the phrase to indicate that she was speaking of the whole of the French people, but it seems she was speaking about some particular people who had been particularly kind to her. Calculating psychopaths can be kind for this reason, so that they will enjoy camaraderie with their aids. So, this statement, that she felt she should be nice to the people who were being nice to her, certainly does NOT certify Marie Antoinette as kind hearted or noble. I suspect, that much as the phrase is thrown around today, it was probably thrown around by the clique of it's originator. They probably had a real laugh, suggesting things the peasants could eat, when they ran out of bread as happened under the leadership of every dictatorial monarchy. Here's how I imagine the phrase came to be said by Marie Antoinette is she heard her royal family, her mom and dad and step parents, maybe her grandparents, talking about what had been said in an age past, when the peasants ran out of food and started eying the national leadership as cause. Then, when she found herself in the situation, she used what was in her circle a cliche, that was widely unknown to the rest of the world. She probably didn't think much of saying it, she probably thought it would be received by her audience as cute and figured it would never get around, never become more widely known that she said it AND probably she hadn't really considered how callous it is when people are starving, to make light of it. So, my guess, is that, EXACTLY as the phrase is thrown around today for it being so pithy and the situation so often endured, peasants starving, Marie-Thérèse originated it, the phrase circulated amongst Royalty for 100 years, probably spoken of at dinner parties how pithy was Marie-Thérèse, how callous and witty and devilishly fun (from the sadistic royal perspective). So Marie-Thérèse originates it, Marie Antoinette's family speaks of it, tells the story. Marie Antoinette happens upon the same situation, bread shortage, she rehashes the phrase originated by Marie-Thérèse. Rouseau writing of it, attributing it to a Princess who he had not heard first hand say it, proves that the phrase was circulating in royal and educated circles. He says some earlier royal said it, presumably she said it to other royals and presumably Rouseau similarly heard it spoken by royals. So, obviously, if Marie-Thérèse said it, 100 years before Rouseau wrote it, obviously the phrase was conveyed by some royal story teller, who probably blathered on and on about all the corruption and hi-jinks those callous witty royals do, for love of reliving the old times and as "lessons" to the young royals on how to live. Marie Antoinette saying it, in royal company, would be like her saying, I'm on your side royal friends. It's basically a slightly witty way for Marie Antoinette to say she doesn't care how the peasants get through their hard times, how the royals deal with the peasants through those hard times, callous, is her intent and plan. It was a way of declaring her loyalty and making light of the situation. Many here have claimed that because Rouseau wrote it before Antoinette could possibly have said it, means that Antoinette never said it. That's OBVIOUSLY nonsense. She OBVIOUSLY didn't originate the phrase, credit Marie-Thérèse, but that wouldn't prevent her from spouting cliche as so many nim wits make habit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielvincentkelley (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Daniel Vincent Kelley's Theory regarding this phrase

message: Whoever said this, there is a simple and much more plausible explanation of the sentence - one which I saw some years before, but cannot document so have not added it to the text.
Apparently, when grain is milled, the chaff is saved as cattle feed.  It is pressed into blocks.  The blocks are now called "cake."  The explanation I read was that it was not uncommon for starving peasants in France at that period to eat "cake" to assague their hunger, but as humans can't digest cellulose, the main component of "cake," they starved anyway.  This interpretation is entirely believable and tends to confirm the reported uncaring nature of the Frech nobility - "If they can't afford human food let them eat cattle food."  Not being a French scholar, I don't know if the French word for "cake" (cattle food) is the same as "cake" (pastery.)" It would be nice if someone could document this and add it to the text.
--Tbonge (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that makes no sense whatsoever in French, where the word in the quote is actually "brioche". Mezigue (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 1

message: The article states that this phrase was not actually said by Marie Antoinette, is this fact? are you sure she did not say this, I have read that it is actually not known where this phrase comes from and could be by either but it is not known exactly who said it.
I'm not trying to say she did or didn't, I just want to make sure we aren't simply assuming things.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.203.217 (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any proof or reason why you believe Marie did not say this? 

message: Currently, the last line of the article mentions that the phrase is also the title of an episode of some show.  I really don't think this is worthy of mention inside the article.  However, if other users disagree, then ALL references to the phrase should be documented.  Off of the top of my head, I know that a fifth season episode of House and a first season episode of Arrested Development are both named after the phrase as well.  I'm sure there are other references outside of television as well.  Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode mentioning

message: The offending paragraph was this:
: This popular translation of the French phrase might also imply more offense than was intended. When studying this phrase, one must also understand the economy in France during the late 18th century.  The price of bread was fixed by the government.  Brioche was one of the types of cakes that had its price pegged to basic bread to prevent bakers from reaping exploitative profits if they refused to sell the otherwise less profitable bread.  A contextual transformation of this phrase might be "let them eat (or buy) cake at the same price as bread." In this sense, the phrase "...let them eat cake" (or rather brioche: a form of bread made of flour, butter and eggs) would have been a sensible suggestion during a flour shortage. It would have allowed the poor to enjoy what would otherwise have been unaffordable.
First, the reference.  This appears to be not much more than a personal site, run by self-alleged post-graduate, one Gary Martin, who now makes his living writing (that site, ostensibly).  I don't see a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy.
Secondly, the last sentence is straight-up copyvio.
Third of all, the relationship between the price of brioche and basic bread is misleading, unsourced, and doesn't make any sense.  Gary Martin says "fancy loaves had to be sold at the same price as basic breads" but that begs the question - why would anyone buy basic bread in this case?  The article said that the prices were pegged, which makes more sense, but is still just a rephrasing of some gibberish made up by some dude on the internet.
Fourthly, as anyone who has ever contemplated (even in the most abstract form) the concept of a famine can independently verify, "widespread bread shortage" does not mean "...but there's plenty of brioche".  It means, there is no bread of any form, because there is no wheat.  This whole line of thinking is based on the fallacious assumption that the brioche in question actually existed.
EAE (Holla!) 03:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work getting rid of that. --hippo43 (talk) 04:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is also mentioned here. The idea is apparently not that the famine is due to natural disaster, but due to economic reasons having to do with mismanagement and poor distribution (which may have happened frequently in the ancien régime), or profiteering. Many famines in Africa in fact are said to be due to economic reasons – there is enough food for everyone, it just has to be distributed fairly. Keep in mind that corruption, oligarchy, ineffective bureaucracy and poor organisation are widespread problems in many countries. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed paragraph 

message: Introductory sentence to article:
: Let them eat cake is the traditional but incorrect translation of the French phrase "qu'ils mangent de la brioche."  Brioche is actually a type of egg bread enriched with a large proportion of butter, rather than any type of dessert or confection.
What is a *cake* & why is the translation of *brioche* to *cake* incorrect?  
Here are the ingredients to make a brioche: 
*flour 
*baking powder
*milk
*sugar
*butter 
*salt
*egg
If I make a dough that includes the above, won't I be mixing ingredients that are the base for the baking of a *cake*?  
In fact, in France, the brioche belongs to the category of pâtisserie called viennoiserie (from Vienna in Austria), which includes brioche, croissant, pain au lait, pain au raisins, chocolatine, chausson aux pommes, etc. and which are eaten at breakfast or for snacks.
My suggestion is that "but incorrect" should be removed from introductory sentence.  
Frania W. (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wran, Merci for the leçon de fabrication de pain et de brioche.  Since you are correct, both the translator of the quote & myself are incorrect as, whoever the translator was, he/she should have used the word *brioche*, "which has long existed in english".  However - aside from this discussion - brioche may be a type of bread, but I can assure you that, in France, the best of brioche is comparable to the finest & delicious *dry* cake, which can be used as base for a dessert, such as *strawberry short cakes*, or as one would treat a savarin, adding fresh fruits, whipped cream & rum.  Frania W. (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Brioche

message: [Without proof, but just hearsay] At the time that Marie-Antoinette said "qu'ils mangent de la brioche" there was a law in France that said that if the bakeries ran short of bread, then the "peasants" could buy brioche at the same price as bread. Hence, the traditional quote mis-translates brioche as cake, when it is, in fact, a rich type of bread, and Marie-Antoinette was saying, in line with that law, "well, if there isn't any bread, then they can eat brioche (at the same price as bread)."
Is this section necessary?  
#  The article has been created because of the very point that MA never said the phrase attributed to her.  
#  there was a law in France that said... needs to be sourced.  
#  peasants were among the last to starve, not that they did not, but at least they lived in the countryside & had access to more things to eat than the poor & not so poor who lived in cities.  So the shortage of flour was more felt in the cities.
Frania W. (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New section in article: Unsubstantiated Explanation

message: I'm VERY surprised that there is all this stuff in the article about where the quote came from and how the translation is screwy, but there's nothing said on what the actual quote is supposed to be talking about, and what it means in the lexicon. As much as the origin of the quote is fascinating, I came here to see what the quote MEANT!
Any addition to the article about it would be VERY helpful TO it. Darkpower (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Darkpower:  Will you pardon me for asking, but : from which planet are you landing ? ? ?  Welcome to Earth.  And if you cannot find bread in a French bakery, buy brioche, so that you will not have to starve to death.  Bon appétit!  Frania W. (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: How about what this quote is supposed to mean

message: This is dicussed above under section "Unsubstantiated Explanation" and "removed paragraph"
I found this point in the lemma Maria_Theresa_of_Spain and decided to move it into the article here. However I noticed that there is great concern if this point is valid.
Maybe someone can look into it and provide good sources and proof for this "bread law".
Anyhow the section that I copied in, needs substancial editing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.60.85 (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To 217.10.60.85:  
*Why remove a paragraph from an article because you want to use it somewhere else?
*If the section you "copied" needs *substancial* editing, why don't you do it? 
*Thanks for noticing "the great concern if this point is valid".  The very discussion of the existence of a "bread law" on this page makes your remark of the *obvious* an interesting point.
*In order to respect chronology in discussion, new section to a talk page should be put after the last section added, i.e. at the bottom of page.  
Regards,  Frania W. (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  French bread law ? 

message: Didn't Anne of Austria first use the phrase "Let them eat cake" during the Civil War of the Fronde?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to "family rumours", it was either Anne of Austria, Louis XIV's mother, or Marie Thérèse, his wife.  In a book I have (must find the page) Louis XVIII, while still comte de Provence, mentions the phrase as having been said by one of the two, I believe that he mentioned Marie Thérèse, but kind of in jest.  However, from what we know of the two ladies, I would tend to believe that the phrase fitted more the mouth of Anne of Austria, a strong-willed woman who had reasons to be upset during the Fronde, than that of Marie Thérèse, a very quiet woman who could hardly speak French and, beside having been subjected to her husband's incartades, did not lead such bad a life, i.e. never had to face hungry/angry mobs, while Anne had to run for her life on several occasions.   Frania W. (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Anne was more the type who would invent a phrase of that sort. And the mob was antagonistic toward Anne, not Marie Thérèse. I read that Anne had said it in one of my bios on Marie Antoinette, but I forget which one. I'll need to check it out.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let's both check on our respective side and, while in my book the comte de Provence is said to have said Marie Thérèse, I would have more faith in yours with Anne.  Frania W. (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can remember when I was in high school and my teacher said that Marie Antoinette used the phrase. Well, I raised my hand and politely corrected her, saying that the line was in point of fact spoken by Anne of Austria. I can tell you, Frania, she didn't like that one little bit.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wrong, Frania. Marie Thérèse was rumoured to have actually said it, not Anne of Austria. Forgive my mistake. I read in Vincent Cronin's biography, Louis and Antoinette, which I bought in 1975 that Marie Thèrèse spoke the words, "Let them eat cake". It's on page 13 of the book. I was certain Anne of Austria said the famous line. Put it down to my faulty memory, sigh......Frania, believe me, my memory used to be excellent!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bonjour Jeanne, How great! - not that you are losing your memory, but that you found the méchante "grande princesse" who supposedly uttered these kind words.  Why don't you include your find in the article?  Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Anne of Austria

message: The article said that "brioche" was an incorrect translation of "cake".  This is not true.  It is certainly true that brioche is a yeast bread (not leavened with beaten egg-whites or baking powder or whatever) and that it is not necessarily sweet, however, it still falls within the broad category of "cake".  The Oxford English Dictionary (which I think qualifies as a reliable source), in fact, defines brioche as "A kind of cake made of flour, butter, and eggs". (OED, 2nd edition, 1989).  Calling a brioche a cake is arguably old-fashioned, however it is not "incorrect".  I have edited the article. --macrakis (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Translating "brioche" as "cake"

message: I have added a couple of articles to the bibliography; the Campion-Vincent article in particular goes into much more depth than we have here; and we should eventually use it systematically.  For now, I'm just leaving the biblio entry. --macrakis (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography

message: The following text has been added to the opening paragraph a couple of times:
:Two main points about the original phrase may be (1) that bread and brioche are both made with flour, so if flour is in short supply then both bread and brioche will be, and (2) that brioche is more of a luxury (more expensive) than bread. Therefore the phrase may be either crass or ironic. If brioche is translated as "cake" the sublety and humour are lost, since eating brioche was (and still is) a common alternative to bread in many situations, wheras cake is not.
This is phrased more like a Talk page discussion than an encyclopedia article.  The bit about the "sublety and humour" is just editorializing about the word "cake" vs. "brioche" in the translation. Can we please resolve issues like this in the Talk page rather than the article? --macrakis (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For full disclosure: I've come here because I was contacted with a request to comment on my talkpage by Macrakis. I've reviewed the discussions above, and I find myself in full agreement with Taivo and Macrakis on all four accounts discussed here. I have reverted Wran's latest edit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Editorializing

message: The second half of the opening section is an attack on Rousseau and suggests that the story was made from whole cloth.  But this disregards both the literary and historical context of his remark.  The literary context is just an off-hand remark alluding to an anecdote (there is nothing about this in the text before or after and in particular no political commentary), which he uses to explain why he bought himself a brioche rather than a loaf of bread. There's no reason to resort to quotations about his being a "sick man" to demonstrate that this is not solid historical documentation. As for the historical context, Campion-Vincent and Kawan discuss extensively the history of famines and bread riots, and responses by the rich on the order of "let them eat X". That is, it may well be that Rousseau's passage is the first documentation we have of the precise phrase "qu'ils mangent de la brioche", but the sentiment and the phrase "qu'ils mangent de..." appear to be older and more widespread. We have much to learn from that article. --macrakis (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That attack on Rousseau seems quite out-of-place here.  I have never read this article before, so this is my first reading.  I reached the Rousseau comment and came to the conclusion that he had made the whole thing up and then wondered why the rest of the article was even here.  Then, after reading the article, and finding all the historical information that the statement was attributed to the wife of Louis XIV, etc., the attack on Rousseau seems quite arbitrary and not relevant to the rest of the historical information in the article.  Why attack a guy for sometimes making things up when it seems that this is not one of those cases?  The attack on Rousseau seems arbitrary and capricious here and does not fit within the context of the article.  It should be deleted, IMHO.  (Taivo (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some cleaning up on that Rousseau comment.  It should be mentioned that there are those who think he made the statement up, but it should not be an excuse for a gratuitous attack on him.  (Taivo (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

text: The proper place for an impeachment of Rousseau's inventiveness is at Rousseau, not here.  We make the statement that some think he might have made it up with a reference.  We don't need a paragraph about Rousseau himself that does not definitively answer the question about this anecdote anyway.  It might be invented, but then again, it might be true.  (Taivo (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  As I said above, someone needs to edit the article in the light of the Campion-Vincent and Kawan article. --macrakis (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I left the bit about there being speculation, but removed the part about no sources for above reason. --58.174.73.169 (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rousseau and the phrase

message: In the fall of 2009, my class at Community College in Henderson, Nevada, my English 232 Instructor was talking about the statement "Let Them Eat Cake" of which she also said that of the time this was said, it was also said "Let Them Eat their Babies."  We all gasped in class, but the point was to show the arrogance of the rich in that time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.161.56 (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding "Let Them Eat Cake" 

message: In Europe at this time the bread ovens were largish domes made of mud and lined inside with simple dough of bread and water and sometimes clay and sand.
That inner lining was called "cake".
The quotation is supposed to be about the peasants eating that "cake" for food.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.153.80 (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cake is Oven Lining 

message: Surely at least one scholar has attributed callousness rather than naiivete to this statement? And/or surmised that Marie was quoting Rousseau? Anarchangel (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were They Stupid or Were They Evil #394,254,908 

message: Do you mean chauvinism - a type of hyper nationality? or Male chauvinism - hyper male pride? Please clarify and use the correct term, right now there isn't balance in this sentence, and the "femininity" part should be taken out for this to work.
:I replaced "her femininity" with "her sex."  I'm sure, however, that she wasn't a victim of male chauvinism alone, I'll bet there were many women who felt the same way the men did. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Her Austrian birth and femininity were also a major factor in a country where xenophobia and chauvinism still played major parts in national politics." 

message: How can they eat cake if the cake is a lie? (obvious Portal reference...)
toxicrystal =D 21:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's still one thing I don't understand... 

message: We all agree that Marie-Antoinette did not say this phrase.  However, the phrase is best-known in association with her. It seems to me useful to mention this -- and to clearly refute the association -- in the lead paragraph. --Macrakis (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It recently was re-edited by someone and reshuffled in order - so of course, I don't see why not. Thanks for that. Kfodderst (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Rousseau's mention of "a great princess" is secondary to the phrase's notoriety in connection with Marie-Antoinette.  The primary interest of the phrase is not that Rousseau mentioned it, but that it is mis-attributed to Marie-Antoinette.  See any of the secondary literature. --Macrakis (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware, but it's best if I don't do further edits on this unless something is blatantly wrong (something as above might further arise). I think a revocation to an earlier structure, in terms of mentioning her primarily, would help. Kfodderst (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

text: That is a disambiguation note, not part of the text of the article. --Macrakis (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Mentioning Marie-Antoinette in lead paragraph

message: On pg. 175 of his excellent 1837 The French Revolution: A History, Thomas Carlyle identifies Joseph Foulon as being "Foulon who said the people might eat grass!" The wiki page for Foulon also mentions this, rendering the quote as "If those rascals have no bread, then let them eat hay." Though the Foulon phrase indicates callousness, as opposed to the obliviousness of "Let them eat cake", the similarity struck me as notable, given the common historical context of the two. I have not yet finished the book, so I do not yet know if Carlyle also makes reference to the latter.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cocktosten (talk • contribs) 04:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Similar quote, also related to the French Revolution

message: This really sticks out like a sore thumb as a poor translation of pis-aller. It almost shouts at readers 'taken straight from a dictionary (or machine translation) by someone terrified of departing from authority'.
After all, stopgap implies a something temporary, to be replaced at a later stage; but here Rousseau was writing about a single event. I would suggest the translation for want of anything better. Norvo (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, the discussion in Talk:Let_them_eat_cake#Worst-recourse converged on "last resort", which is better than "stopgap", but not ideal. That got modified to "last retort" (!) and then in 2/2011, it was changed to "stopgap", which I agree is incorrect.  That said, your periphrastic translation sounds better to me than trying to find a noun phrase equivalent for "pis-aller". --Macrakis (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks. I had in fact already read the earlier discussion, but it seemed to be dominated by the unstated view that dictionaries have quasi-scriptural status. The point of a translation is to render the sense of the original faithfully and unobtrusively in the target language. A competent translation should not draw attention to itself, but that is precisly what stopgap does. It draws attention away from what Rousseau actually wrote and has readers - or at least those sensitive to linguistic usage - wondering what went wrong with the translation. Unless there are objections within the next five days, I shall change it along the lines suggested. Norvo (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am all for good idiomatic, faithful, and unobtrusive translations.  But what happens when WP editors disagree (as was happening above)? Wikipedia's policies on No original research and Reliable sources help arbitrate such cases, though I agree that they can veer into pedantry.  Can't we find a good modern English translation of Rousseau?  Not that that eliminates arguments about which translation to use.... --Macrakis (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone finds a good modern, published translation of that passage (in a translation of Rousseau's Confessions), fine. On the more general point, however, Wikipedia policy on Original Research and Reliable Sources is of very limited use for handling translation: after all, translators treat dictionaries as aids or guides, not as 'reliable sources'. Even a respected bilingual dictionary may not provide a solution that fits in a particular case.  Translation is essentially a practical craft (often of a high order), not a scientific or academic activity comparable to the study of botany or history. That said, I note you wrote 'help arbitrate', not 'decide'. If the point is simply: 'Use an acknowledged modern published translation, if available, before attempting a DIY translation', I would not disagree. Norvo (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we agree completely.  "Help arbitrate" is indeed the crucial phrase.   --Macrakis (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "stopgap solution" ! 

message: This article, while otherwise well-written, reads like a magazine article or a college paper and not like an encyclopedia entry.  Parts of it need to be rewritten as a series of statements with numbered references and Antonia Fraser shouldn't be mentioned at all except in the references.  Rissa, copy editor (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: >The attribution also has little credibility. Fraser cites as justification for the alternative attribution to the wife of Louis XIV the memoirs of Louis XVIII.... saying belonged to the Spanish princess who married Louis XIV in the 1660s.
Is the woman mentioned as the "wife of Louis XIV" and the "Spanish princess," Maria Theresa of Spain?  And if so, why not mention her by name?  That would make this easier to understand. and readers wouldn't have to guess who this mysterious person is.   I thought for a moment they were two different women.  Also, the marriage was "contracted" in 1660. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Spanish Princess 

message: >Although only published in 1782, Rousseau's Confessions were finished in 1769
How do you know he didn't edit or rewrite parts of them between 1769-1782?  Rissa, copy editor (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rousseau's Confessions