Talk:Charlotte Corday

message: What is that about "Revolutionary mysoginism?" 
Wasn't the Revolution a more liberal force, promoting more rights for women?
* I'm not sure what I think of the phrase (BTW, in the article it is correctly "mysogyny", not "mysoginism"). I do believe that women in general were somewhat better off in terms of rights, especially economic rights, after the Revolution, but there were probably more truly influential women under the monarchy than during the Revolution. Olympe de Gouges was an impressive figure, but was guillotined, as was Madame Roland. Of course, so many of the revolutionaries were guillotined that it is hard to say that proves much. I'd love to know where the phrase came from; I doubt it was pulled out of thin air; I'd much rather see it quoted from whoever said it. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:16, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
** You are both wrong. In English the correct spelling is misogyny or misogynism from the Greek μισογυνία or μισογύνης, which is a contraction of μισέω (I hate) and γυνή (woman). It is the opposite of misandry or misandrism. But it is academic, as I believe that the phrase has already been removed from the article. But it raises the question wether Charlotte Corday was guilty of misandrism and that her actions actually promoted misogynism. But I will be bold and speculate that after her actions the hate of the revolution focused on Marie Antoinette (whom the French did not like anyway). But I will also go on record for saying that the issues concerning the French revolution are very complicated. When taught history at school, we were led to believe that the French were not necessarily against the monarchy but that the French poor had such massive problems that something had to be done. The Monarchy and the Aristocracy however, did not seem to be doing anything. The French had such massive problems that I do not think that promoting women's rights was a big priority. If you are interested in "Revolutionary Misogyny" it may be worth your while reading Leslie Ann Minot's entry in Le siècle de George Sand, pages 147 to 156 (Powell, David A., Le Siècle de George Sand., Amsterdam ; Atlanta (enquiries), 1998, 373p, ).
--JHvW (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mysogyny

message: This article says Marat had a lot of Girondists arrested in 1789. This seems very unlikely - too early a year, and I don't think Marat was in a position to order anyone arrested. The Girondists article doesn't mention this either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chelydra (talk • contribs) 13 July 2006.
: Indeed. I don't think there were any Girondists as such in 1789. - Jmabel | Talk 06:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error? 

message: Thanks for every one for this article. I have a note: why there is internal or external link to two essential texts for this story, these are: 
*The "Speech to the French who are Friends of Law and Peace" by Mary
*Maximilien Robespierre's words before the execution of King Louis XVI that were linked tp Mary's words "I killed one man to save 100000". 
Thank you --Thameen 19:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mary?? - Jmabel | Talk 03:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Marie-Anne-Charlotte, I guess. --Wetman 04:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Essential texts

message: "It has been suggested that the skull of Corday remained in the possession of the Bonaparte family and their descendents (via the royal marriage of Marie Bonaparte) throughout the twentieth century." Seems to me that if this is not promptly cited, it should be removed. At best it is curiosa, but uncited it is not even that. - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A skull reputed to have belonged to Charlotte Corday has been the subject of much research. The study of skulls (I believe that phrenology is the appropriate term) has known its ups and downs. Cesare Lombroso was one of the first to propose the idea that criminal behaviour may have a genetic base. This genetic defect could be seen in distinctive traits of, for example, the skull.  There is no proof that it is actually the skull of Charlotte Corday or that the skull shows traits of criminality. I would agree that skulls from victims of the guillotine are grisly souvenirs and should preferably not be mentioned. --JHvW (talk)  21:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  While it may seem "grisly" to modern people, the keeping of a skull, preferably of an important person, was not unusual for an upper class household in the 19th century, and Craniometry was a serious attempt to scientifically link physical traits to personality traits. (nowadays discounted of course.) Goethe kept what he thought to be Schiller's skull in his house. As late as 1880 Kant's skull was exhumed and craniometrically examined. See also memento mori and vanitas. I see no reason why Corday's skull shouldn't be mentioned, as long as its use is put into the correct perspective. --BjKa (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grisly souvenir 

message: All the facts seem to check out and it's well-cited.  Congratulations, editors!Levalley (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good job on this page! 

message: I am trying to find information about an old picture called "Charlotte Corday Before Her Execution (Victor Von Schubert)" 
I can be reached at (e-mail removed) Thanks hh
You have posed a question in the Wikipedia.
It is not usual to ask questions on the discussion page as you have done.
Please remove the question when you have found the answer.
Should you wish to do this again, please date your question.
Otherwise it might linger for a long time.
Also the e-mail address you have provided is invalid, so I have removed it.
But in part, I will try to answer your question.
The picture in question was probably made by Viktor Ritter von Schubert-Soldern,
who was an Austrian/Czech artist and probably lived between 1834-1912.
He has made many portraits of Ladies.
If he painted Charlotte Corday it would have been long after her execution.
He would probably have used a model.
Maybe the painting is based on the etching that is in the article.
Your best bet would be an encyclopedia of art history for that period.
Or maybe a German language encyclopedia.
JHvW (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Charlotte Corday 

message: Does the color of Charlotte Corday's hair need a special section? It seems rather trivial. 
Soon after her death, confusion arose surrounding the color of Corday's hair: the opening sentence makes it sound as if in July 1793, at the time the Terror was gaining momentum, France & the Revolution stopped going on with their business because in a state of confusion as to the color of the hair of a woman who had just been beheaded. 
Then the story goes on with how Corday had hired a local coiffeur to straighten and lighten her hair, followed with the most important historical discovery: Although this story rapidly became popular in Paris at the time, there is no historical evidence to support that it actually happened.
So... what's the purpose of mentioning it in an encyclopedia?  
The whole section is based on a rumour and, even if it was true, it has no importance in Charlotte Corday's role in the French Revolution. It would have only if the colour of her hair had changed the course of History.  
As for the conclusion of the section: Part of the reason for the discrepancy in descriptions of Corday can be attributed to the stigma attached to powdered hair. At the time, only nobility and Royalty ever powdered their hair, and in a time of violent anti-royalist revolt, such association can be powerful in influencing popular opinion.[8].  
"Only nobility and royalty ever powdered their hair"? How about Robespierre??? - one of the most elegant men in France, who powdered his hair, and who was to head the Committee of Public Safety that sent thousands of people like Charlotte Corday to the guillotine. 
The section should be removed. 
--Frania W. (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not disagree with you, but removing trivia from a Wikipedia article is very difficult, as I have learned on many occasions. You are certainly right about Robespierre too, and one could mention many other individuals from the Bourgeoisie and Petite bourgeoisie who engaged in the practice. The section is poppycock. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Dr. Dan, although I am in the proces of becoming a Dr (or Ph.D. or whatever), I find it odd that it is difficult to eradicate meaningless trivia, whereas editors and administrators have no problems removing trivia that are interesting or removing stuff that has no bearing on the content of the article, like removing first names of the subject. I am sorry if I sound bitter, but I have just given up on the WP and am in my final throes (and I have quickly removed all references to ). ----JHvW (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Hair and controversy

message: "While Charlotte was a young girl, her mother, Charlotte Marie Jacqueline Gaultier de Mesnival (1837–1882) and her older sister died."  These 19th-century dates cannot be correct for the mother of someone who was executed before the end of the 18th century.71.246.234.242 (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The dates have been removed. Thanks for pointing out this blatant error.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error regarding mother's birth and death dates? 

message: "Corday is also known to be an ancestor of the pioneering French photojournalist Henri Cartier-Bresson ... she was found to be virgo intacta (a virgin)" -- one of these is wrong, but which one? Given the lack of mention of a husband/marriage, I'm going to guess M. Cartier-Bresson is mistaken. Before I remove him from this article, does anybody have more definite knowledge? Biblioteqa (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descendants? 

message: At the end of "Political influence" it says Marat was a "Montagnard", while in the first sentence of the next section "Marat's assassination" it says Marat was a "Jacobin". I'm really not interested in whether one statement is correct and the other wrong, or whether they may both be correct. I just want to make the point that this is confusing for casual readers not intimately familiar with the political details of the time and needs a correction or explanation. --BjKa (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Factions 

message: This is the first time that I see this "discussion has been closed" construction.
I feel the more usual archiving mechanism would improve the usability of this page. (Whole lotta scrollin' goin' on.)
--BjKa (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talkpage 

message: What's the relevance in the beginning of the Biography section for saying her parents were cousins? Especially among the nobility and people from small towns/villages, practically everyone married a cousin of some degree or another. So why even mention it? To try to make it sound like there was something nefarious, incestuous going on?  76.202.192.102 (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parents