Talk:Sarah Bernhardt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Connection to Edward VII of the United Kingdom

It appears that Bernhardt was a mistress of Edward VII of the United Kingdom for a while. Neither article mentions this, so if someone would like to do the research it would be worth adding. -- Solipsist 09:10, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

LGBT

If you're going to put someone in the 'gay, lesbian and bisexual people' category, I need some evidence from the article. I have no evidence whatsoever that Sarah Bernhardt isn't a heterosexual. Can someone please put that information in the article? Scott Gall 08:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Courtesan?

I've honestly never read much that suggests that Bernhardt was much of a courtesan, except possibly at the very beginning of her acting career, when she had an affair with Henri de Ligne (have seen it spelled several different ways), the father of her son Maurice. Most of her money throughout her life was made through her work. I've never seen any real confirmation of any supposed affair with Edward, except that she was friendly with at least one of his known mistresses. I don't think she was bursting with the conventional sexual virtue of the period, but overstating her role as courtesan overshadows her excellent business acumen and the fact that she herself tended to support her lovers.

Her career actually began at the French national theater, but legend has it that she was dismissed because she behaved disrespectfully to an established older actress. The story is that Sarah's younger sister Regine was hanging around with her backstage, and during a procession, stood on the train of the gown of an established actress, Madame Nathalie. Nathalie either shoved or slapped Regine, and Sarah slapped Nathalie. Another version of this story has Sarah doing the accidental-standing-on-the-train and being shoved, and Nathalie being slapped. I'm not sure which is more likely, but Regine was very delicate (eventually died quite young), and Sarah was known to have been very motherly towards her, so if someone had behaved violently towards Regine, it seems more likely that Sarah would have risked her career over that than over a personal insult.

4.225.129.36 07:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Sandra Bernhard = gay icon, Sarah Bernhardt, not so much. Recury 02:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Jewish 素性

• Is she Judaist(Judaism)? |--Sheynhertz-Unbayg 8 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)

She was of Jewish ancestry but Catholic by religion; she pointedly decried anti-Semitism in the Dreyfus Affair.

Operas from Bernhardt Plays

Someone claimed that Tosca, La Traviata, Fedora and La Gioconda, "to name a few" were all operas based on plays written for Bernhardt. I noticed that this certainly is not the case for La Traviata, which was written by Verdi in 1848. Since Bernhardt was only born in 1844, it seemed rather unlikely that she would be playing Violetta, the consumptive courtesan, before the age of 4. Someone should check up on the others too, just to make sure. A possible candidate for replacement here is Salome, which I believe Bernhardt performed before Strauss wrote his opera, though I cannot say if Wilde wrote the play specifically "for" her. Someone should check this up too. Also, I changed the operas to links, while before they were only in caps for some reason. eeesh 15:02, 8 May 2006

Wilde wrote "Salome" specifically for Bernhardt; any good biography of her will say so. I'm not sure whether or not he wrote it with her input. But they were friendly with each other.

Tosca was indeed written as a play for her (by Victorien Sardou, IIRC, a dramatist with whom she was closely associated, but the Tosca article should have that info).

The confusion about La Traviata is understandable. First of all, that name - and the name of "Violetta" for the heroine - is peculiar to the opera. The story originated as a novel by Alexandre Dumas fils (the younger), called La Dame Aux Camelias. In the story, the courtesan's name is Marguerite; camelias are her favorite flower, hence "the lady of the camelias." It was much adapted, including into La Traviata" (which means "the woman who strayed"). The version which Bernhardt was known for was dramatized by Dumas fils himself in 1853. I don't know whether he dramatized it for her or not; I don't think he did, but ICBW. It's probably just a case of them having the same source material. Verdi did not write La Traviata as early as 1848: it was produced just after Dumas fils dramatized his own story. So I think the 1848 date might be the publication of the original novel.

I don't know anything about La Gioconda (though I have a poster for it - I'm not sure about its plot and how it compares to the opera) and I'm not certain I was even aware that there was an opera based on Fedora (was the writer perhaps thinking of Theodora?) At any rate, those are minor and would probably be better replaced with Salome - so long as Strauss's version is based on Wilde's text.

4.225.129.36 07:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it looks now, to come back to his WAY later, that the Dumas novel was published in 1848 and the opera was performed in 53 or somewhere around there, though I'm not really sure, and sorry for confusing things by anachronistically using the name "Violetta". In regard to some of the other questions raised, I believe that there certainly was an opera called Fedora by Umberto Giordano, and I'm actually at more of a loss to come up with what you meant by your proposed substitution of Theodora; and yes Salome is certainly based on Wilde's text, it is virtually a word-for-word setting (though of course in German instead of English or French, the play's original language). Anyway, my original point still stands, that you shouldn't claim that La Traviata was based on a Bernhardt play, since she was still very young when the opera was written in any case, though she may have later acted in a stage adaptation taken from the same source material which all the same was almost certainly not "dramatized for her" since she was too young if it was indeed written in 1853. Thus, I'm removing "La Traviata" and "Fedora" and "Gioconda" for now, (which have not been justified adequately after all this time), unless that's already been done, which is possible. (Eeesh 01:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC))

Sarah Bernhardt in Popular Culture

I didn't know about Sarah Bernhardt till I heard the song "Practice makes Perfect" by 70s british post-punk band Wire, this is how the lyrics go:

"Practice makes perfect, yes I can prove it Business or pleasure, the more that you do it

Please dress in your best things, this course was unplanned 'Cos you see up in my bedroom I've got Sarah Bernhardt's hand

Practice makes perfect, I've done this before Never for money, always for love

Please dress in your best things, and don't make a fuss 'Cos you see up in my bedroom Sarah's waiting for us"

I don't know if this is so important as to add it on the page but there it is for your judgement.

Sarah Bernhardt (or perhaps her character Princess Fédora) is credited with introducing a soft felt hat that became known the fedora.http://www.hatsinthebelfry.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=h&Category_Code=mens-fedora-hats&sort=&offset=96</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.8.132 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Date of birth

Most sources seem to give October 22, not October 23. By the way, "Not to be confused with comedienne Sandra Bernhard" as it says at the top of the page. That's ridiculous -- like saying George V shouldn't be confused with George Burns. It shouldn't be assumed that our readers are complete idiots. Alpheus 08:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a long story to the birth date saga, which I've continued below under the thread titled "Birth name???". -- JackofOz (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

----Sarony----

I am the biographer of Sarony and am compiling a list of known poses of Bernhardt for Sarony. I can b contacted at broadwayhistory@msn.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.205.169.170 (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Removed summary sentence

Removed the sentence that stated she was arguably the most famous actress of the 19th century. Wikipedia Manual of Style defines "arguably" as a Weasel word and states "Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague or indirect syntax. The consensus of editors responsible for Wikipedia encourages you to name a source rather than assign an opinion to an anonymous source".

More on this can be found at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.

The word would be acceptable if a source can be credited to back the statement up. Philbertgray 15:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the statement is common knowledge; I would want a citation for the statement that anyone else was *more* famous than Bernhardt. I would simply delete "arguably." --Andersonblog 20:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 08:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright

I think we need to discuss that image of Hamlet. Although the original image was published before 1923 and is now in the public domain, the image as it now stands is claimed to be a new version. Does that mean that copyright on the image, as it has been substantially altered and amended, is renewed? DrKiernan 10:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A reproduction, even if cleaned up, doesn't create a new copyright: "Cropping, removing dust or distortions and other minor changes don't alter its copyright status"; Made a request at Commons to be directed to a page that explains this. DionysosProteus 12:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see. That makes sense: in the United States copyright rests with the initial act of creativity rather than with an act of reproducing a previously created work. However, the United Kingdom is different: scanning an old photograph creates a new electronic work, with a new copyright. Hence, it is necessary to qualify the license tag on the image to point out that the image is public domain in the US, but not necessarily in other countries. I have made such an amendment. DrKiernan 13:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to provide a link to the commons page that takes us through that distinction? I'm still awaiting a reply from my request. DionysosProteus 14:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please point out where in UK copyright law or in which legal cases it was said that "scanning an old photograph creates a new electronic work, with a new copyright"?? I've never heard of this. If someone takes a photo of an old painting, then yes, there is creativity involved and the photo gets a new copyright in the UK. Even if the photo is a faithful reproduction. (But not in the U.S. Faithful photographic reproductions are not eligible for copyright as per Bridgeman v. Corel.) But I have never ever seen any indication that a scan of an old photograph was eligible to copyright in the UK. You don't get a copyright for xeroxing something either. Please see commons:COM:ART for more information. Lupo 14:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

In general, the Lafayette collection is problematic because according to [1], many of these photos were not published, and V&A indeed has a kind of copyright called a publication right on those for 25 years, counting from the eventual publication. But Image:Sarahbernhardt1.jpg was apparently published in 1899 (see [2] at the bottom). The copyright was registered in 1899, and the photographer was either James Stack Lauder (James Lafayette) (1853-1923) or William Harding Lauder (1866-1918). (See [3].) Both are dead for more than 70 years. See also this chart of UK copyright lengths. It seems to me that this photo is in the public domain also in the UK, and also in the rest of the EU. Lupo 14:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your question, the advice given to Higher Education institutions in the United Kingdom is: "Whilst a slavish scan of a photograph with little human intervention is unlikely to be classed as original and so not afforded copyright protection, an image that is scanned, altered and enhanced using a high level of human skill and judgement in order to achieve the effect of the original work may in itself be afforded copyright protection". If this advice is correct then cleaning up the old negative and creating a new digital image may be copyrightable in the United Kingdom. See http://www.tasi.ac.uk/advice/managing/copyright.html for the full document. DrKiernan 14:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That advice is correct. A scanned image that is a mere copy of an existing photograph cannot attract copyright in the UK if the copyist has devoted "no such labour and skill as conferred an originality of an artistic character"; and there can be no new copyright if the process is "wholly mechanical": see Reject Shop -v- Manners [1995] FSR 870 at 876 per Leggatt LJ. This was a case relating to the use of an enlarged photocopy, but a scan would be treated in the same way. The Court quoted an earlier Privy Council case (Interlego -v- Tyco, [1989] AC 217) where Lord Oliver had said "But copying, per se, however much skill and labour may be devoted to the process cannot make an original work". In one of the practitioners' texts, The Law of Photography and Digital Images, Christina Michalos comments that user selection of lightness/darkness and resolution settings would not be enough, but that copyright could be generated if the scanner were to be used as an art tool - eg to create a totally new work from an original arrangement of existing elements. That much is clear. Whether copyright is generated by post-processing must be a matter of degree. If all that is done is "wholly mechanical" and just needs technical rather than artistic know-how (eg how to use Photoshop to remove dust, tweak contrast etc), then no. But if the processing requires artistic judgement, even if fairly minimal, then yes. It's difficult to be precise, but it could definitely be argued that complex post-processing to enhance and bring out certain features in a selective way is of necessity artistic.

So far as images here are concerned, the problem is that we often don't know what, if any, post-processing has been applied. I would think it reasonable to assume (unless we have evidence to the contrary) that what appears to be a mere scanned copy of an old photograph actually is just that, and should be kept as 'non-original'. Otherwise we will be throwing out large numbers of scans that are actually OK. MichaelMaggs 18:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

rvondeh@dircon.co.uk adds: as the person who scanned the negative and then spent many hours cleaning it, removing cracks, fixing the lighting, adjusting the contrast, reconstructing parts which were missing - I would state most definitely that the Lafayette Bernhardt image is most certainly not just a simple copy. Anyone with a level of training will note that the photograph as displayed on the Wikipedia page is not a scan from a newspaper - it is far too crisp and has none of the duo-tone problems associated (i.e. small dots or lines). I generally feel that when authors add photographs to Wikipedia by copying them from obviously academic (or otherwise) web sites, the use of a small note requesting permission to use an image would be, at the last, polite. I don't believe that Wikipedia advises its authors to remain within the realms of academic politeness but it would be a step in the right direction.

Alexandre Dumas, pere

Was she not also involved with Alexandre Dumas? I believe I have seen somewhere a photo of the two together. LaCritique (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Birth name???

This page says she was born Marie Henriette Bernardt and that she added an h to her first name which makes no sense. The French page says she was born Henriette Rosine Bernard, the German page says Marie Henriette Rosine Bernard , the Italian, Dutch and Spanish pages say Rosine Bernardt, the Esperanto page (yeah I decided to get to the bottom of this!) says Henriette-Rosine Bernard, the Swedish page says Henriette-Rosine van Hard. I am lost for explanations... Mezigue (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a lovely demonstration of how Wikipedia can sometimes operate in an unintended way. I assume that all those versions were constructed on exactly the same principles as the English language version, that the names come from reputable sources etc. I guess what's reputable to a Frenchman is a different animal from what's reputable to a Spaniard, an Englishman, a Dutchman, etc etc. Or maybe it's just a demonstration of how dominant English has become, and there are a relatively smaller number of good sources in the other languages compared with English-language sources. But presumably all those name variants are locatable online and it's surprising that nobody's noticed the discrepancies till now. I guess if you're looking to support your belief that her name was Marie Henriette Bernardt, you'll find plenty of ammo, and wouldn't have any reason to go off looking for other possibilities. Very, very interesting, Mezigue. Hey, I've got a brilliant idea. Let's have a policy that before making any edits, editors have to check with all the other language versions of the same article to make sure we're being consistent across all languages. Wouldn't that be fun!  :) -- JackofOz (talk)

But I have absolutely no idea which one is correct! One similar thing I've noticed before, unfortunately, is that if a mistake remains on a Wikipedia page for a while it spreads over the Internet and then feeds back here...Mezigue (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth

If you think that's a conundrum, try this one on for size. The above revelation prompted me to do a similar exercise for her date of birth. I found that Wikipedia is speaking with at least 6 tongues. Her birth date depends on which article you look at:

• 22 September: French

• 22 October: Bulgarian, Dutch, English, Esperanto, German, Icelandic, Italian, Letzebuergesch, Norwegian, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian, Veneto

• 23 October: Catalan, Danish, Finnish, Indonesian, Kapampanag, Kiswahili, Simple English, Spanish, Swedish, Volapuk

• 24 October: Hungarian

• 25 October: Ukrainian

• 22 November: Bosnian.

That's just the ones where I could understand the language, or it was readily apparent what date they were quoting. Only problem is, none of them have the date I came here looking to confirm - 25 September. So, what do we make of all that? Like you, I'm no closer to being convinced about when she was actually born. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So, naturally I looked into this question a little further, and I discovered this fascinating research that proves that ALL of Wikipedia's articles are wrong, including the English version. The truth is that her exact birthday is not known and will almost certainly never be known, because the records, if they ever existed, have been destroyed. We can't even be certain about the month of October, although most seem to find it convenient to agree on at least that much. Any source that simply asserts this or that date without any sort of qualification should be taken with many grains of salt. Here's a proposed footnote that will justify changing the date of birth to simply "1844":

• Bernhardt’s date of birth is not known with any certainty, and likely never will be. There is general agreement it was in 1844. The dates most frequently seen are 22 October, 23 October and 25 October, but dates in September and November have also been claimed. None of these dates can be confirmed with documentary evidence. It is not known whether a birth certificate ever existed; but if it did, it would have been destroyed in a fire at the Paris Hotel de Ville in 1871. No biographer has ever claimed to have sighted such a document. She was baptised in 1857, when was about 12, but once again the record is missing. In any event, a birth date taken from a certificate of a baptism conducted at the age of 12 would not be reliable as a primary source, and could only be used to corroborate other evidence. (In The Art of High Drama, a Professor Ockman describes finding an "unidentified newspaper clipping" in the Bibliothèque de la Comédie Francaise in Paris, which included a copy of a baptismal certificate saying Bernhardt was born on 25 September 1844. This claim is so vague and unverifiable as to be worthless.) It has been claimed that "Bernhardt sometimes celebrated her birthday on 23 October". There is no verification of this claim, but even if there were, it would not prove she was born on that day. Further, the word "sometimes" raises a number of questions; principally, in the years when she was not celebrating her birthday on 23 October, when was she celebrating it? Bernhardt’s 1907 autobiography Ma double vie (My Double Life) made no reference to her date of birth; even if it had, it would likely not be considered conclusive as the book is known to be filled with a considerable amount of hyperbole [4]. Bernhardt was born out of wedlock, to a father whose identity is uncertain, hence it would be no surprise to find that she obfuscated about when she was born (assuming she knew the exact date, which she may not have) - even better to say nothing about it. [5] -- JackofOz (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections, I've added an edited version of this footnote to the article and removed a specific date from the lead and the infobox. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Revisited

I've been away from this article for quite a while, but I see the date "22 October 1844" now appears in the lede without qualification, as if it were incontrovertible fact, and in the infobox with the footnote. I have very strong reservations about this. We simply cannot claim this specific date with any degree of certainty, because any record that might corroborate it has been destroyed. We can't even be absolutely certain about the year 1844, but almost all sources agree on at least this much. Before I make any changes, I'd appreciate some input about what we should do about her birthdate. I'm still very strongly wedded to the idea of showing simply "1844". We should have a section in the article proper discussing the issue, and explaining why we can't be any more specific than "1844", and we could also mention some of the dates that are most commonly found in sources. And then readers can come to their own conclusions. We should not make that conclusion for them, because we simply do not know. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

References to Bernhardt's sexuality

A book put out by the Bibliotheque nationale de France includes a painting by Bernhardt's friend, Louise Abbema. Apparently, the letter accompanying the painting states that it commemorated the women's relationship. This does not, however, support the idea that Bernhardt was "openly bisexual", since there are no contemporary accounts of her being open about the nature of her relationship with Abbema. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.143.249 (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The website which was used as a source to support that this 19th century actress “was openly bisexual”, only makes a one-liner assertion. It does not cite any credible contemporary accounts or documents. It's unfair to make deliberate assertions or misinterpreting biographical information on notable people who are deceased. I didn’t see anything about her bisexual tendencies or being “openly bisexual” in her autobiography, Britannica or other biographies.

P.S. Her sexual orientation isn’t an issue, if she was homosexual it wouldn't add or subtract from her legacy, but in the interests of historical scholarship it's important to view facts in their proper context. --Grinevitski (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Link to this article

I don't know the subject at all, but I was surprised to see Sarah Bernhardt in a list of famous 19th-century examples on the Courtesan page. Would this by any estimation be correct? Yours almost-instinct 14:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The most recent modern biographies indicate that when Bernhardt was young, she supplemented her income by taking lovers. (It was commonplace for young actresses, ballet dancers and singers to have "a protector" -- they weren't paid much. Bernhardt found the fact that she was received in upper class English homes surprising, since actresses had the social reputation of, say, strippers, for many in the 19th century.) Skinner (1967) writes that "Her lovers may have given her jewelry and other expensive gifts, even occasional funds, but she never took on on for mercenary purposes." (pg 42) Skinner, however, discounts a contemporary account by a fellow actress, attributing it to jealousy. The more recent biographies, including the 1991 Gold and Fitzdale biography indicate that this contemporary account, though biased, is probably accurate about this, especially since Bernhardt's mother and aunt were both courtesans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.116.123 (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Parents etc.

In 2007, there was an exhibit on Sarah Bernhardt in the Joods Historisch Museum in Amsterdam. For this exhibit, Harmen Snel, an (/the chief?) archivist of the city of Amsterdam, did research on Sarah's origins, which apparently never had been done properly before(!). He wrote a booklet about it: "The ancestry of Sarah Bernhardt; a myth unraveled." (Jewish Museum of Amsterdam, 2007, ISBN 9789080202931) I'll try to translate what was written in a newspaper article on this here:

...Also he exposes the fraud that the actress, who had grown into an icon of French nationalism, had committed in 1914 to become eligible to receive the Légion d'honneur. She could only obtain that order [which she did] if she could prove to be French. For this reason she falsified her birth record and certificate. Since her father was unknown and she had held the surname Bernhardt her entire life, she made up a father with the name Edouard Bernhardt who supposedly had been a law student from Le Havre. For her unmarried mother, who in reality was named Julie Bernhardt (daughter of Moritz Bernhardt) she made up the new name "Judith van Hard". Snel says that up till now newspapers and biographers have taken Sarah Bernhardt's falsified documents for the real thing and have copied each other blindly. Even the American catalogue made for/before the exhbition [in 2007 in Amsterdam] made that mistake, though the exhibit displayed Snel's discovered facts correctly.

Besides exposing Sarah Bernhardts fraud, Snel also found out facts about her grandfather that explain why she had carefully never mentioned him in her life: grandfather Moritz Bernhardt was not only a spectacle merchant and "optician" of dubious character - he performed for example eye surgeries at street fairs - but also a (not so) petty criminal, perhaps the most notorious one in Amsterdam. Snel: "He committed church robbery, about the worst thing you could do as a Jew, was a pickpocket, committed armed robberies, and was the main suspect of a jewel theft from the royal palace in Brussels. However, he was so clever and glib that he never was convicted for anything"....

This from the Trouw newspaper; there was a similar article on Monday 3, 2008 in Het Parool (search in [6]). I only found one English biography on the web aware of his book.

At any rate, the current text in the wikipedia article seems copied from those sources that "copied each other blindly". If there is anyone with access to the book (anyone visiting the Jewish History Museum, for example), it would be great if he/she can rewrite the early biography (and perhaps mention the fraud). If nothing happens, I'll change it based on the above (and perhaps a bit more digging), but a primary source reference would be much better (the news paper articles may have mistakes in them).

BTW From this website I understand that Snel wrote or implied "Though Sarah celebrated her birthday on October 23rd (this based on a letter she wrote to her lover) October 28th was probably her correct birth date." Afasmit (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Her daughter

She had a daughter with her husband, Teresa,I think that this should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.242.225 (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Teresa, who went by the name Thérèse, her turn married Jean-Auguste Boulard in 1911. Three children survived infancy: Anna (1913-1988), Marceline (1915-1951), and Joseph (1918-1967). In 1917, while serving on the front, Jean-Auguste reportedly fell in love and deserted the army. He never returned to his family. Outraged and shamed by this affront, Thérèse obtained from the government to recover her maiden name Bernard, and her three children had also their last name changed to Bernard (this highly unusual measure in France was awarded to the wives of deserting soldiers). Joseph Bernard married in 1946 a woman named Reine Le Bars (born in 1927). They have had two sons: Jean-Claude (born in 1947) and Roger (born in 1953). This last one is my father. Which makes me the great-great-grandson of Sarah Bernard. As far as I know, we are just 13 people sharing this privilege. The oldest one is 39 years old, the youngest one is 23 (my sister). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.141.192 (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/62517/Sarah-Bernhardt/8218/Early-life-and-training#ref181930 (content added here and in subsequent edits by the same contributor). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Peony

Can the fact that the Sarah Bernhardt Peony is named after Sarah Bernhardt please be added to this article somewhere? I have to admint, I'm somewhat stunned it isn't already in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CYL (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The IPA pronunciation of Bernhardt's name is not correct compared to the way Sarah pronounced her own name! On many of her recordings, namely the titles recorded for Pathé, Gramophone, and Zon-o-phone in 1902 and 1903, she introduces herself by giving the title of the piece she is going to recite, followed by the phrase "dit par Madame Sarah Bernhardt". I have closely listened to all of her surviving recordings many times, and despite the tendency of the primitive recording equipment used to blur (or completely lose) hard consonants, it's totally clear she always pronounces her family name with a short "a" and an audible final "t", with stress on the second syllable - it would be rhyming with German "vernarrt" (while the present IPA wrongly describes a long "a" and silent "t", like the French male given name "Bernard"). The clearest transcription of one of her records I could find online is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWGjd39dPg8 , there's some other examples on YouTube which all sound identical as regards the pronunciation of the name. Sorry I don't know how to type IPA symbols, but I hope there's people more versed in Wiki editing than myself who can fix the wrong pronunciation. I have not checked yet, but very likely the problem affects other language Wikis as well. ChrisZ78 (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. It sounds as if she kept close to the pronunciation her (grand)mother would have used (Dutch pronunciation: ['sara 'bɛrnɑrt]). I suggest: French pronunciation: ['sara bɛr'nɑrt], or we can emphasize that she used French Rs: French pronunciation: ['saʁa bɛʁ'nɑʁt]. I'll never understand why in French stress indications are tabu, but someone will probably insist on removing them to "French pronunciation: [sa.ʁa bɛʁ.nɑʁt]". Afasmit (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

She was an accomplished sculptor

Surprised and sad to see no mention that she was an accomplished sculptor. (I just saw one of her pieces, and it was truly impressive -- even more so for someone who had so little time to spend sculpting due to her theater work. Will add info, but it would be nice if there was a creative commons photo of one of her sculptures we could inbed. --Gwengazorn (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It's there though, under "Fine arts career" and with a picture of one of her bronzes. Afasmit (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I added that section. The photo is not good though -- would be nice if we could get one of Apres la tempete.--Gwengazorn (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sarah Bernhardt's amputated leg has been found

For details, see <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22iht-edjohnson.3.19600014.html?%5C_r=0&_r=0> (last retrieved 7/3/13) Arreshl (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Improving the article

I am working currently to improve the article. . I have added several new sources and added in-line citations to each paragraph, and have restructured and added to several sections, giving citations for each addition. I am also editing and added citations the list of plays in which she performed.

I also am addressing the number of images. I agree that there are too many in the two final galleries; I propose to select a few images from those galleries for inclusion in the article, and then to eliminate those two galleries. The article still needs a few images of her in her later years and final performances, and an image of her in her coffin, which I am trying to find.

Given the length of her career and the number of plays she performed and the things she did, I don't think the current overall length is too excessive. Some of the lists near the end, such as the list of magazine articles, might possibly be shortened or consolidated, and with the galleries gone, it should be within the norm.. .

Suggestions for further additions and changes are welcome. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent work you've done on improving the article, @SiefkinDR:. You may want to consider, however, spinning off another article from this one, to keep it in a readable length. 100,000 bytes is pushing the envelope for an encyclopedia article. A natural break may be to put the lists near the end of it into a new article, entitled "Works of Sarah Bernhardt" or something similar.

In regards to the citation scheme, there are a lot of statements (some controversial, some not) that have now been added to the article that are probably in the sources you are using, but are not tied in to them through the use of in-line citations. An example from the article: "She also became carried away in her off-stage performances; when a theater doorkeeper addressed her as "Little Bernhardt", she broke her umbrella over his head." This statement needs a citation directing the reader to the source describing such an event, which some may view as a disparaging remark, possibly put out there by one of her detractors.

I hope this helps explain what is needed. Please keep up the good work and thanks again. Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 16:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

As suggested by user GenQuest, I have (1) created a separate article for the list of plays and films; (2) eliminated the two photo galleries, moving some of the images to a separate article and integrating a few others into the text. (3) I am adding additional citations, particularly where the text might be controversial Additional suggestions are very welcome. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice work on the article. You've been at it for two months now and I guess you'll work on it for a few more;-)

The rewritten early life section was not an improvement though. It reads well, but it conveys a certainty that does not exist. The old version properly had very little on her youth, followed by "Much of the uncertainty about the facts of Bernhardt's life arises from her tendency to exaggerate and distort. Alexandre Dumas, fils, described her as a notorious liar." Now, there is a lot of detail and no mention anywhere anymore that Bernhardt repeatedly wrote or told her biographers stories about her youth and family that flat out contradicted her previous stories and often were demonstrably false. For example, in her own Mémoires she wrote that her mother was 16 when she was born, while she told her 1899 biographer Jules Huret that her mother had had 14 children, of which she was the 11th; in reality, she was born when her mother was around 20 (based on claimed age at death) or around 23 (Snel's family reconstruction) and she was the third of five children, all daughters. If that information can't even be trusted, Cinderella stories like "sleeping on an ironing board" and "her mother came to see her twice in two years" cannot be presented in an encyclopedia as facts. You've chosen to mostly follow Skinner's story of her youth, but Skinner was no historian and her version is unlikely to be any closer to the truth than that written by others. For example, Skinner wrote that Sarah's mother 's name was Judith van Hard who came from a bourgeois, middle-class, Dutch Jewish family who lived in Berlin (though word was that Judith was the illegitimate daughter of a Belgian marchioness who ran off with a German eye doctor) and that Sarah's father was a law student before becoming a prominent notary in Le Havre. Except for the "Dutch Jewish" part, this is nonsense or unsubstantiated guess work at best.

You've moved her family background to the end in a section "Paternity, Date of birth and ancestry". Though chronologically awkward I can see a rationale for separating it from her own life. However, while paternity and date of birth are unresolved and controversial, her mother's roots have been very well documented. I would prefer the family background at the beginning of the page, as it makes clear that her origins were very humble indeed (e.g. many in the family were carnies). Alternatively, make it the first paragraph of the personal life section. You've changed the section as well, incorporating many mistakes from earlier (auto)biographies:

The identity of Bernhardt's father has never been clearly established. Bernhardt herself and he biographer Cornelia Otis Skinner said he was a law student named Edouard Bernard, who met Bernhardt's mother while he was studying in Paris. In her account, Sarah was born at 5 rue de l'Ecole-de-Medicin on the Left Bank in Paris, Edouard Bernard was then called back to Le Havre, where he later became a successful notary. and provided financial support to Sarah. [156] This cannot be proven, because her original birth certificate was destroyed when the Paris Commune burned the Hotel de Ville and city archives in 1871. As Bernhardt described in her autobiography, she saw her father on a number of occasions when she was young, but frequently he was overseas. she reported that, when she was still a child, he died in Pisa, Italy. "in unexplained circumstances which remain mysterious." In his will, he paid for much of her education, and left a sum of one hundred thousand francs as a future wedding dowry. Other historians have disputed this story, claiming Bernhardt invented the name of her father for official documents she needed to receive the Legion of Honor. A more recent biography by Helene Tierchant (2009) identifies her father as a young man named De Morel, whose family were notable shipowners and merchants in Brest.[157]

1) The person Edouard Bernard was obviously made up; it should not be mentioned, or only as in "In her faked baptismal certificate, Sarah called her father Edouard Bernard, which was the name of her only uncle, youngest sibling of her mother." Uncle Edouard (c.1827-aft.1886) is an interesting person to mention at any rate. When he was 11 his (very itinerant) father put him in a boarding school in Tours, France, and, according to a letter from the headmaster to the mayor of Amsterdam, never showed his face anymore and failed to pay for his education. Perhaps he was inspiration for some of Bernhardt's stories. Edouard Bernard moved to Valparaiso, Chile, where he has extant offspring.

2) The story of her birth certificate could be fleshed out. For 20 years, some nitpickers dragged out honoring her with the Legion of Honor because her mother wasn't a French citizen and her father was unknown. Finally, she had a false baptism certificate produced: she supposedly was baptized at Grandchamp on 21 May 1856: as Sara Maria Henriette, daughter of Edouard Bernhardt from Le Havre and Judith van Hard from Paris, born 25 September 1844. Of course, this baptism does not exist in the registries of Grandchamp and no one was fooled at the time, but all they needed was some paperwork. Don't write this story down as if it is equally likely to be true as what "other [i.e. all] historians [who] have disputed this story" say.

3) The stories about her father are most likely fantasies, including "The father left a sum of one hundred thousand francs for her future dowry when she came of age, and supported her mother financially for a time"; she didn't need it then, but if a dowry showed up at her marriage in 1888 there would be an easy notary trail. I bet there wasn't any.

4) Can you tell me what "Tierchant … identifies her father" means? Is there DNA evidence, did she find notary acts, or is this another guess à la "Judith was the illegitimate daughter of a Belgian marchioness"?

Bernhardt's mother Judith, or Julie, was one of six children of an itinerant Dutch-Jewish oculist, Moritz Baruch Bernardt, and Sara Hirsch (later known as Jeanette Hartog or Jeanne Hard). She was born ca. 1821in the early 1820s. Bernardt's wife died in 1829, and five weeks later he remarried,[158][158] His new wife and five daughters and son from the earlier marriage did not get along. Judith and two of her sisters, Henriette and Rosine, left home, moved to London briefly, and then settled in Le Havre, on the French coast. Henriette married a local notable, but Julie and Rosine became courtesans, and Julie took the new, more French name of Youle." In April 1843, she gave birth to twin girls to a "father unknown." Both girls died in the hospice in Le Havre a month later. The following year, Youle was was pregnant again, this time with Sarah. Before she gave birth, she moved to Paris, to 5 rue-de-L'École-de-Médicine, where Sarah was born.[159] Bernhardt regularly gave her birthdate date as 23 October 1844, and that is the date given in most biographies.[160]

1) Moritz Bernardt (c.1797–1852) did not have any medical training, so the profession oculist is deceiving. He could grind lenses and sold eyeglasses. He was an excellent impostor though, advertising himself usually as "court physician to the House of Saxony, etc. etc." After reading Snel's book again, my wording spectacle merchant, "vision specialist" and petty criminal were too flattering, as Snel could reconstruct his life mostly from the many police records.

2) Julie's mother, who died in March 1829 when Julie was ~7, was Sarah Hirsch / Jeannette Hartog, but never Jeanne Hard. "Hirsch" and "Hartog" are Yiddish and Dutch patronyms (her father was Hirsch ben Jaakow/Hartog Jacobs Springer).

3) Snel calculated Julie's birth year to be ca. 1821 (± a year). Julie probably understated her own age.

4) It's worth mentioning Julie's stepmother's name (Sarah Abraham Kinsbergen, 1809-1875), as she was stuck with 6 stepchildren when her husband was basically always gone after 1833 (and completely disappeared a few years later) and she also actually lived off and on with Sarah Bernhardt in Paris. "His new wife and five daughters and son from the earlier marriage did not get along." seems a bit unfair.

5) Is there any evidence that Julie and her sisters moved to London briefly?

6) You could mention Sarah's sisters. The twin died after a few weeks, but her (half)sister Jeanne (born c.1851) was an unsuccessful actress who was a morphine addict, while her (half)sister Régine (born 1854) was a prostitute who died of tuberculosis at age 19. (Snel p 93)

7) Re birth date: In 1859 she enrolled as Rosine Bernardt with a birth date of 28 October 1844 at the Conservatoire National; this is the only record surviving from before her birth record was lost in 1871. Snel (pp. 9–10) argues that since her birth record was still available and there was little reason to obscure the truth, "this registration can be regarded as founded on facts".

See if you can get Snel's book; it's an interesting read. Afasmit (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful and useful comments. I'm going back through and trying to clarify points where there is uncertainty, such as the birthdate, and some of the early stories Bernhardt told. I also will clarify the points you make about the ancestry. I would like to keep the ancestry part separate, because its already quite long, and other articles on actors and actresses don't go into so much detail. I'm trying to clear up some of the other points you raise by finding additional sources. If something can't be clarified or solidly sourced, it probably should simply be left out. probably be left out. This is still very much a work in progress, with a long way to go. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Who was "Madame Nathalie"?

In Ma Double Vie, we have Sarah Bernhardt's story of her confrontation and conflict with "Madame Nathalie." Bernhardt describes this person as "the very fat and solemn Madame Nathalie. She was a Sociètaire of the Comédie, old, spiteful and surly." (anonymous translation published by William Heinemann, 1907, p. 101.)

In Comédie-française (1658-1900): Liste alphabétique des sociétaires depuis Molière jusqu'à nos jours by Georges Monval, published by Aux Bureaux de l'Amateur d'autographes, 1900, p. 93 (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gRYbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA93) we find an entry for Zaire-Nathalie Martel (1816-1885) who became a Sociètaire January 1, 1852 and retired April 1, 1876.

According to Monval, Bernhardt separated from the theater May 1863. That conflicts with the dates given in the article, which indicates that Bernhardt's conflict with "Madame Nathalie" ooccured in Januay 1862 and her departure from the Comédie-Française occured in early 1862. The article also gives the date of Bernhardt's debut as August 31, 1862, which agrees with Monval (p. 11). Bernhardt can't very well have had her conflict with "Madame Nathalie" before her debut. So I take Monval's date of separation of 1863.

In 1863 Zaire-Nathalie Martel was a Sociétaire. The only other Sociétaire named Nathalie listed in Monval is Anais-Pauline-Nathalie Aubert, who retired in 1851. So it can't be Aubert.

The photo of Martel available at http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/zaire-said-miss-nathalie-martel-comedienne-photo-published-news-photo/89865560#zaire-said-miss-nathalie-martel-comedienne-photo-published-in-of-16-picture-id89865560 does indeed show a woman of significant avoirdupois.

Bernhardt describes "Madame Nathalie" as "old." Martel was 47 in 1863. We might not think of that as "old" but to the 18- or 19-year-old Bernhardt a person 48 years hold, thirty years her senior, probably qualified as "old."

We are left wth Martel as the only candidate.

Poihths (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Excellent detective work. You are quite correct about the wrong date for her expulsion; I have fixed that. I will also put the full name of Madame Nathalie with the citation you have given above. Please let me know if you see other things that need fixing. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Improvements needed and made

I have made a number of changes to the article in response to the helpful comments made in this section and in the templates.

I've doubled the number of in-line citations, so there are now more than two hundred. I believe every statement and every paragraph now has in-line sources.

I've done a more careful cleanup to get rid of typos, though some might still be in there.

I've reviewed the length, content and style of the article, and compared it with those for other famous actresses. It has a very similar structure, style, content and length to the articles on other famous actresses. it's a little longer than the article on Marilyn Monroe (who had a much shorter career), but shorter than the articles on Ellen Terry, Audrey Hepburn and Katherine Hepburn. It has more images than some articles, since her pictures are now in the public domain.

I'm not clear why the template was added about the encyclopedic tone or style of the article. It seems very much in the same style, with comparable sections, to those for other actresses. I'd be glad if someone could explain why these were added, and if they're still needed.

I welcome further comments and suggestions for changes and improvements. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I've gone over the article and copyedited it - gotten rid of as many grammar mistakes as I could find, and tried to standardise the spelling and grammar. When I've completed the remaining two sections and gone back over it one more time, I'll remove the copyedit template.

I think that the unencyclopedic template should remain for now, since some sections still read like they were written by a fan - praise her acting, etc. (WP:SUBJECTIVE). I tried to fix some of these, but my focus was mainly on the copyediting.

According to my word-counting script, the article comes out at around 15-16k words. Not the longest article, but certainly one of them (WWII, for example, has ~13k, and Facebook ~10k). I think that the length is fine as it is, but certainly it doesn't need to be any longer.

Regards, Dairy⁵⁰¹ 10:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your excellent copy editing; you did a great job. I agree with you on the length, it shouldn't be any longer; it's about the same as the articles on other prominent actresses, through her career was much longer than most. I don't think it's particularly a "fan" article, since it also includes the harsh criticism of her acting style, by some later critics; hopefully its balanced, but of course it can always be improved further. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, though I understand the heading, the section "The wilderness" could possibly do with a better one. Can you think of a better title that could be used? "Gymnase and travel", or something similar perhaps? That could be one reason for the maintenance tag. The referencing seems pretty good now though. Keep up the great work on the article, Dairy⁵⁰¹ 09:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Good suggestion; I've given the section a more specific heading. Again, thanks for your good ideas and edits. SiefkinDR (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about accident

This article contains two incidents, both while on tour in South America, where Bernhardt leapt at the end of a performance Tosca and missed the mattress which had not been placed correctly. Both times, she hit the stage and injured her knee. This accident eventually led to the amputation of her leg.

Did this really happen twice? Or is it one story that is being recounted in two different years and cities? It seems like an unusual accident to happen twice with such similarities. I was hoping that some editor who has worked on this article or who knows French theater could confirm this. Not having on hand any sources about this actress, I'm unable to confirm or consolidate these reports. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

very good question. Hard to believe it happened twice. let me see what I can find out. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)