Talk:Christine de Pizan

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jeanettegome72.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
is considered by scholars to be the first women writer

This is obviously wrong as written: Sappho predated her by something like 2000 years. Would the original author care to expand on what he meant? -- Paul Drye

Yep, entirely incorrect. She might be the first European woman to have made a living from writing, though even that is contested. We're not sure what Marie de France did for a living. --MichaelTinkler

Very true. What was meant by the statement, was that de Pizan was the first women author of note, in Europe to make a living from being a writer. This came directly from my humanities instructor -- although I myself find such statements hard to believe without rigid substantiation. I agree with the change. -- Maveric149


 * Just to continue this discussion - are we aware of any writers that earned a living by writing, before Christine? I was fairly certain that Edmund Spenser was the first European to do so. Atorpen 22:18 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't know about authors prior to Christine, but she did earn a living by her pen for most of her adult life. This would mean that Spenser certainly wasn't the first — he was born a full century after she died. — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 16:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What evidence is there that Christine de Pizan earned a living by writing? Are her household accounts available? The primitive printing technology of the time would not have allowed mass distribution of her works so who purchased them and at what price? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

Sorry - I love the picture; Christine might even have overseen it (she did for some of her books produced in her lifetime), but it's an image from a book owned by a library or museum. They hold copyright - and tend to protect them jealously. --MichaelTinkler

What's with all the references to her via her first name? Is this conventional? Loren


 * I'm not certain if "Pizan" or "de Pizan" can really be thought of as a last name in the modern sense and thus saying "Pizan" instead of "Christine" would be wrong. --mav
 * I've also seen her referred to as "Christine de Pisan" (with an S instead of a Z). — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, in writing about the Middle Ages, scholarly convention is to refer to people whose names have the "____ de ____" construction by their first names, for, at that stage, the "de ____" was often actually identifying where a person was from, and wasn't yet equivalent to a modern last name. I do not know exactly when that changes, so I can't say with 100% certainty that it has not changed by Christine's day, which is the main reason I don't edit it back.  But given the scholarly conventions I've been taught regarding writing about the Middle Ages, this "Pizan"/"de Pizan" feels very wrong.  I'll see if I can pursue further information and settle the question. --Paulbee 04:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Convention had not changed by Christine's day, I am certain of this. I'm not certain of the timeline for that change either, but I'd guess closer to the age of print (though even then, spellings and appellations weren't always rigid). It is conventional to refer to anyone -- male or female -- with an "of somewhere" by primary name. So in the same way we discuss Mary Queen of Scots as "Mary" so we discuss Christine de Pizan or Jean de Meun as "Christine" or "Jean." Mys46637 18:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

She also wrote about the victory of Joan of Arc at the Battle of Agincourt

If this statement is correct, it should be clarified that this is Alternative history. (Joan was 3 at the time, and the French lost.) --Townmouse 08:38, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, the the idea's right but not the battle. Christine wrote about Joan's most famous victory, the lifting the Siege of Orléans. — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 13:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC); edited 15:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

POV
Some parts of this article read more like a persuasive paper than an encyclopedic article. --Fang Aili 17:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The text overall isn't that bad. The references are cited in that ugly parenthetical way, but there's nothing too POV in there. Some uncited weasel phrasing ("Overall, de Pizan and her writings have been celebrated and embraced" By whom? We don't even have a "Influence" section.) crops up now and again, but it's nothing a rigorous copy-edit couldn't fix. The headings, though, are terrible. "Establishing her literary reputation" "Making her mark" "an authoritative rhetorician". The whole article seems like it would do well to receive a division into "Life" and "Work", without all the high-flown pop biographical phrasing. Geuiwogbil 18:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Hope no one minds. Geuiwogbil 00:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I reread it. Indeed, it seems too much like a essaye with aims at persuasion. Something more serious need be done. Geuiwogbil 18:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Pizan or Pisan
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)
 * 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)

Christine's name comes from her father's city of origin: Pizzano. So technically, Pizan is probably more accurate, but Pisan is a French phonetic spelling of the proper sound to her name (but it promotes the misunderstanding that she was from Pisa). Understandably French speakers tend to use Pisan, Italian speakers Pizan. I'm not sure if there is a "correct" spelling that Anglophones should adopt; consistency is the best best. Mys46637 18:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Her name: the city of origin, as noted above, is Pizzano. Until a decade or two ago, it was often given as "Pisan" in French AND English, but that's both incorrect and conceivably misleading: as noted above, some readers and students assumed that she or her father came from Pisa. More important, she herself should not be referred to as "Pizan" or "de Pizan," as in the article; that is the equivalent of referring to Guillaume d'Orange/William of Orange as "Orange." The poet in question is either "Christine" or "Christine de Pizan," but definitely not Pizan. I edited the article to correct that.
 * 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 Smith Talk 17:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Her work: there is a contradiction in the article, and I have left it. In the 2nd par., we read that she completed 41 pieces, but later we read that she wrote over 300 ballades as well as other poems. How to reconcile these statements? Njl2 (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

Her Husband?
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)Heri Larien


 * 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), tweaked 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Date conflicts?
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)

Suggested resources
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)

Possible Sources
In trying to understand more about Christine's life and works, I have come across the following resources. Would these be a good place to get information about her?

Laennec, Christine Moneera. “Unladylike Polemics: Christine De Pizan's Strategies of Attack and Defense.” Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature, vol. 12, no. 1, 1993, pp. 47–59., www.jstor.org/stable/463756.

Rigby, S. H. “The Wife of Bath, Christine De Pizan, and the Medieval Case for Women.” The Chaucer Review, vol. 35, no. 2, 2000, pp. 133–165., www.jstor.org/stable/25096124.

Willard, Charity Cannon. Christine de Pizan: Her Life and Works. New York, NY: Persea, 1990. Print.

Jeanettegome72 (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, those absolutely look like good sources. I would consider using the Cite journal, Cite book, & Cite web citation templates when you reference those. Here's some examples:
 * will render as:
 * will render as:
 * will render as:
 * will render as:
 * will render as:


 * I also recommend you check out these three links for sources:
 * http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=su%3a%22Christine%2C--de+Pisan%2C%22
 * https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=1,48&q=Christine+de+Pizan
 * https://academic.microsoft.com/#/search?iq=Composite(AA.AuN%253D%253D%27christine%2520de%2520pizan%27)&q=christine%20de%20pizan&filters=&from=0&sort=0


 * Peaceray (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Christine's name
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)


 * 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)

reverenced or referenced?
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)

Christine and Jean
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) Extonare


 * 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)

First feminist writer
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)

Age of death
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)


 * 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)