Talk:Marie Bonaparte

Dynastic legitimacy

The lede states: Her paternal grandfather was Pierre Napoleon Bonaparte, son of Lucien Bonaparte, Napoleon's rebellious younger brother.[1] For this reason, despite her title Marie was not a member of the dynastic branch of the Bonapartes who claimed the French imperial throne from exile.

This gives the impression that the reason her family's status (which I believe means they were not given the priviledges of Imperial Highnesses) was due to the fact that Lucien Bonaparte was "rebellious". I don't believe this is the case. Isn't it because her maternal grandfather, Pierre Napoleon Bonaparte entered a morganatic marriage with Éléonore-Justine Ruflin? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Or is their status due to descending from the branch that held the Papal (not French) title of Prince of Canino and Musignano? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

ransom

Could someone clarify the term "ransom" as applied to Freud and the National Socialists?

Freud was held captive in Austria by the Nazis until Bonaparte paid them a ransom of a quarter of a million Austrian schillings. His passport was then returned and he was permitted to emigrate. Such ransoms were not uncommon in the beginning of the Nazi conquest of Europe. I've also seen the figure given as £20,000 (which may or may not be equivalent). - Nunh-huh 23:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Notes for possible use in article

There was a 1957 television drama, MATINEE THEATRE: THE RANSOM OF SIGMUND FREUD [1] based on Freud's difficulties escaping the clutches of the Nazis.

Wasn't Marie Bonaparte's title Papal rather than French? (See the articles about her father and his title)NRPanikker (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Source, please

For this: "It was to Marie Bonaparte that Sigmund Freud remarked, "The great question that has never been answered and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is ‘What does a woman want?’"." Slrubenstein | Talk 19:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Aristide Briand

According to a book which I'm reading on the Salonika Campaign, she was the mistress of French PM Aristide Briand in 1915, and he was suspected of wanting to make her Queen of Greece. Is this corroborated in any biography of the woman?Paulturtle (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. FactStraight (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. Am about to write up Maurice Sarrail's biog.Paulturtle (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Now in Briand's biog as well.Paulturtle (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Princess X

From the article:

"She modeled for the Romanian modernist sculptor Constantin Brâncuși. His sculpture of her, "Princess X," created a scandal in 1919 when he represented her or caricatured her as a large gleaming bronze phallus. This phallus symbolizes the model's obsession with the penis and her lifelong quest to achieve vaginal orgasm."

I take issue with this. Both the Wikipedia article for Brâncuși and for Princess X say the opposite, as does the Philadelphia Museum of Art's entry for this sculpture (http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/51035.html). Brâncuși quite emphatically defended this work and was mortified and offended that anyone considered it to be a phallus, much less that he purposefully chose a phallus to represent Marie Bonaparte.

If anyone can show a reliable source proving the alternative story as quoted above, please post. If there is no dissenting discussion, I will reword or remove this passage in a week. History Lunatic (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)History Lunatic

Why was there "a scandal"? I think a re-word might be more advisable than a wholesale removal. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

After sleeping on it, I agree rewording it is best. The sculpture did in fact cause scandal because many people thought it looked like a phallus; even today the image will get labelled as obscene and is often removed from websites. But the problem in the current text is the misrepresentation of what the sculpture is and what Brâncuși intended, which was a minimalist portrait of a woman looking at herself, entranced by her own beauty. History Lunatic (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)History Lunatic

Is there a "free" picture of it we can add to the article? That would seem to be the best course. Let people see it and decide whether it looks most like a contemplative princess or a giant glistening dick. Sometimes the artist is the last to know; intent doesn't always accurately describe the product. - Nunh-huh 15:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a picture on the Princess X article that we could post, but it's not the best angle. The picture at the Philadelphia Museum of Art's entry for this sculpture (http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/51035.html) shows a better angle but I don't know if we are allowed to post it here. An image search will show many pictures of this sculpture, but I don't know Wikipedia well enough to know what is postable and what is not. It also helps to view Brâncuși's other work to get a sense of his minimalist style.

But the sculpture has its own article. Again, the problem I have with this article text is not what people think this sculpture does or does not represent; it's that this text states that the artist intended it to represent a phallus, which is patently untrue from my research. Even the article for Brâncuși and for Princess X support this. History Lunatic (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)History Lunatic

He didn't really capture that delicate lace veil with the pretty headband, did he. The perils of Modernism, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

It's just too, too, shocking that anyone would think this sculpture resembles a penis! How can people be so blind!

I think we need to remain silent on what the sculptor intended and speak instead of what he said he intended. (P.S. is the use of the word "detest" as a noun in the Princess X article ungrammatical? )- Nunh-huh 22:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"Speak for yourself, Snow White". But, yes it is. The noun is "detestation", but "loathing" or "disgust" etc., might fit just as well. So I've corrected it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

All things considered, I much prefer it to Magritte's masterwork, "Ceci n'est pas une bitte". - Nunh-huh 14:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

You'll be telling us next that this is not a chair. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, can you sit on it? - Nunh-huh 19:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't look very robust, does it? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Getting a bit off topic here. The question was, can anyone find a source that backs the article's statement that Brâncuși "represented her [Princess Marie Bonaparte] or caricatured her as a large gleaming bronze phallus. This phallus symbolizes the model's obsession with the penis and her lifelong quest to achieve vaginal orgasm," rather than the Philadelphia Museum of Art's article which states "Brancusi was infuriated by the comparison [to a phallus]. He insisted the sculpture was a portrayal of a feminine ideal and denied alternate readings that characterized it as a sign of his desire for its model or a formulation of sexual duality." Art interpretations from any but the sculptor aside, as pertains to this article about Marie it is important to state correctly how the sculptor envisioned his model.History Lunatic (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)History Lunatic

Tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree insofar as we have no really good source for what the article currently states, and so the article should not include that statement. But insofar as "Princess X" is concerned, the artist's opinion is only important as counterpoint to the fact that it gave rise to scandal because observers thought it remarkably penis-like. There are some interesting and sourced quotations here. - Nunh-huh 04:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Princess Marie Bonaparte. 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/20051012100357/http://www.spp.asso.fr/Main/HistoirePsy/Histoire/Items/4.htm to http://www.spp.asso.fr/Main/HistoirePsy/Histoire/Items/4.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) 06:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Surgery

I am looking for medical literature about her surgeries that mentions what was done to the pudendal nerve in the process. I haven't found anything about it. At that time, it was not possible to separate a clitoral glans from the place where it has grown and transplant it without cutting through the dorsal nerve of the clitoris. No wonder the surgeries did not improve her situation. Sciencia58 (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

One of the sources, Bonk, listed in the article, is a great source for information about what the surgery entailed. Some of the sources the author, Mary Roach, turned to may have some insight. Plantbella (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)