|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on July 13, 2010, July 13, 2011, July 13, 2013, and July 13, 2015.|
|This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): Sj.will.|
|Charlotte Corday has been listed as a level-5 vital article in People, Revolutionaries. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
- 1 Mysogyny
- 2 Recently linked
- 3 Error?
- 4 Essential texts
- 5 Grisly souvenir
- 6 Good job on this page!
- 7 Marat Responsible for Reign of Terror?
- 8 Picture of Charlotte Corday
- 9 Hair and controversy
- 10 First name
- 11 Charlotte Corday's final resting place
- 12 Error regarding mother's birth and death dates?
- 13 Descendants?
- 14 Political Factions
- 15 Talkpage
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
At a quick skim, the recently linked Marat, premier de Corday looks like historical ("Marat, first of Corday"), by Gilles Marchal (in French) looks like it may be historical fiction. I gave it about 2 minutes and couldn't be sure. My French is not good enough for me to make a proper evaluation quickly. Could someone with good French please have a look at this and let us know just what it is (the title is by no means self-explanatory) so we can work out whether it should be linked? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I gave it a bit more of a read and I think it is a somewhat fictionalized history (fictionalized at least in that it includes presumably imaginary dialogue) and that it is quite hostile to Marat, whose rhetoric it compares to Goebbels'. I don't think it's very useful, either here or in the article on Marat. Its first appearance in Wikipedia was an edit last month in the French Wikipedia by fr:Utilisateur:Adrienne who says on her personal page in the French Wikipedia, "je suis une fan inconditionnelle et fidèle de Gilles Marchal" (apparently for his singing) which doesn't exactly convince me that she would be the most objective judge of his writing. I'll give another day or two for someone to weigh in and explain why this belongs linked in the English-language Wikipedias (other than in the article on Gilles Marchal, where it would be fine), but if none is forthcoming, I will probably delete from both places it has been linked. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:07, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
please, don't remove this links, They result from a very serious French site and can bring a new light on these articles concerning of the French events. It is not a question of linkspam. thank you in advance . Adrienne93 08:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- So Adrienne, what exactly is it? At a quick read, it looks like historical fiction. If you want it kept, please explain it in a way that gives some indication why someone would want to look at it. - Jmabel | Talk 04:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Jmabel to allow me to present these articles to you. Excuse me by advance, I do not write English very well. Let to me very introduce to abort the author of these articles to you: it acts of Gilles Marchal who is a very talented French artist years 1970; It does not sing any more but on the other hand, it writes very good texts on various events of the French history. These texts are not fictionalized, insofar as all that he writes true, is checked thanks to very precise research with the public records.
- However, Gilles Marchal introduced there a new element: humour. All that is told true, and is often ignored of the public, but simply treated with much humour. By the French wikipédia, there were many people who adhered to this style of writing, in particular a club of professor of history and librarian of the university of Grenoble, which take for pretexte the texts of Gilles Marchal to feed their debates. I add that there is no financial aspect with these presentations. The site is completely free access. I think sincerely that these bonds, not only do not withdraw anything with quality articles, but can give a new and different approach to the manner of approaching them.
- With regard to the aspect of the page (that you find very ugly), I am quite sorry, I am not very gifted in design, however, the texts can be read on a file pdf created to more easily print the accounts suggested. I thank you by advance for again considering with benevolence the maintenance of these bonds in the English wikipédia. In a friendly way. Adrienne93 16:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
The Girondins were actually arrested on 31 May 1793! :) Lizzie22.214.171.124 07:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
- Mary?? - Jmabel | Talk 03:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Marie-Anne-Charlotte, I guess. --Wetman 04:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
"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)
- 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. In his opinion the skull of Charlotte Corday showed many "criminal traits". Leslie Dick (yes, that really is his name) has published extensively about this subject. The Skull of Charlotte Corday and Other Stories is one of his books and is probably still available. If you want to see the actual skull you can look at the: Discovering Sherlock Holmes website by Stanford University (Reputed skull of Charlotte Corday). That skull shows the characteristics of a skull which once belonged to a human female. 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)
- 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)
Good job on this page!
Marat Responsible for Reign of Terror?
The article currently states, "In 1793, she was executed under the guillotine for the assassination of Jacobin leader Jean-Paul Marat, who was responsible for the Reign of Terror. "
I highly doubt this is accurate, since Marat was killed in July 1793 and the Reign of Terror didn't begin until September that year, at least according to Wikipedia.
Should I remove it?
- It is not the sentence in Charlotte Corday's article that should be removed, but the one in the Reign of Terror that gives its beginning as 5 September 1793. French historians agree on two reigns of Terror,
- The first one (10 August 1792 to 20 September 1792) which began with the attack on the Tuileries followed by the royal family imprisoned in the Temple, the September massacres, and the creation of institutions that were to govern during the second reign of terror.
- The second one (31 May/2 June 1793 to 27/30 July 1794) with a peak in terror called la Grande Terreur (loi du 22 prairial = 10 June 1794), which lasted to the fall of Robespierre.
- Marat's inflammatory writings in his L'ami du peuple were definitely a cause of the Terror. Maybe more attention should be given to what he wrote before finding him innocent of the excesses of the Terror while his articles are considered to have led to the events of 10 August 1792 and the September massacres three weeks later.
English-language historians, at least, universally refer to the period between September 1793 and July 1794 as the Terror. I have never heard of the fall of the monarchy and the September massacres being considered "another" Terror. In any case, even if there are two Terrors, the statement that Marat "was responsible for the Reign of Terror" is at best ambiguous and in dire need of clarification. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Picture of Charlotte Corday
|Picture of Charlotte Corday|
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
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.
Hair and controversy
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..
"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.
- 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)
- 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)
I agree with Frania W. that the section should be removed. Another argument would be that evidence is based on a painting. The artist might have painted her hair in a fashion that was in vogue at the time and not how her hair really was. If you look in the French Wikipedia (if you can read French and are interested in Corday, this is a very interesting article), there are already marked differences between the pastel and painting by Hauer. There can be many problems with paintings. If you look, for example, at Rembrandt's The Anatomy Lesson, a left arm is being dissected. This arm seems much larger than it should be and it could even be a right arm! A British Royal once viewed a portrait of a lady who was proposed as a candidate for marriage. His remark was that she could not be that attractive. One of his courtiers asked if he knew the lady in question, to which he replied: "No, but I know the court painter". Although this evidence is anecdotal and not fact, it illustrates that no conclusions can be drawn about Corday's hair based on a portrait. Beside which I agree with Frania W. that Corday's place in history and in the Wikipedia has no relation to her hair. Again, the section about Corday's hair should be deleted.
If you look at the picture of Corday being conducted to her execution, you will see that a man is carrying a red robe. She wore this, as she was instructed to wear red as was customary for murderers and assassins.
There are many other things that are much more interesting like a good translation and references, for the letter she wrote to her father about her actions, or some of her other quotes, like:
- All true patriots will meet in heaven. ( patriotism).
- It is the toilet of death, but it leads to immortality. ( being guillotined).
- You die only once and it is for such a long time. ( death).
- I did not kill a man, I killed a beast. ( the assasination of Marat).
Or a good translation of her "Address to the French laws and friends of peace", her apology of her actions (this is a translation I found on Google, it should of course be "Address to the French friends of laws and of peace").
|Corday, Charlotte Corday or Marie-Anne Charlotte de Corday d'Armont: A case in Wikilawyering and the MoS.|
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
Reason for question:
Would you now please tell me why we are having this discussion? Do you think that the first name should be restored and that she should always be referred to as "Charlotte Corday" and never simply as "Corday"? If so, why? Surtsicna (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Adresse aux Français amis des lois et de la paix.
« Jusqu’à quand, ô malheureux Français, vous plairez-vous dans le trouble et dans les divisions ? Assez et trop longtemps des factieux, des scélérats, ont mis l’intérêt de leur ambition à la place de l’intérêt général ; pourquoi, victimes de leur fureur, vous anéantir vous-mêmes, pour établir le désir de leur tyrannie sur les ruines de la France ?
« Les factions éclatent de toutes parts, la Montagne triomphe par le crime et l’oppression, quelques monstres abreuvés de notre sang conduisent ces détestables complots […] Nous travaillons à notre propre perte avec plus de zèle et d'énergie que l'on n'en mit jamais à conquérir la liberté ! Ô Français, encore un peu de temps, et il ne restera de vous que le souvenir de votre existence !
« Déjà les départements indignés marchent sur Paris, déjà le feu de la discorde et de la guerre civile embrase la moitié de ce vaste empire ; il est encore un moyen de l'éteindre, mais ce moyen doit être prompt. Déjà le plus vil des scélérats, Marat, dont le nom seul présente l'image de tous les crimes, en tombant sous le fer vengeur, ébranle la Montagne et fait pâlir Danton, Robespierre, ces autres brigands assis sur ce trône sanglant, environnés de la foudre, que les dieux vengeurs de l'humanité ne suspendent sans doute que pour rendre leur chute plus éclatante, et pour effrayer tous ceux qui seraient tentés d'établir leur fortune sur les ruines des peuples abusés !
« Français ! vous connaissez vos ennemis, levez-vous ! Marchez ! que la Montagne anéantie ne laisse plus des frères, des amis ! J'ignore si le ciel nous réserve un gouvernement républicain, mais il ne peut nous donner un Montagnard pour maître que dans l'excès de ses vengeances […] Ô France ! ton repos dépend de l'exécution des lois ; je n'y porte pas atteinte en tuant Marat : condamné par l'univers, il est hors la loi. Quel tribunal me jugera ? Si je suis coupable, Alcide l'était donc lorsqu'il détruisait les monstres ! [...]
« Ô ma patrie ! Tes infortunes déchirent mon cœur ; je ne puis t'offrir que ma vie ! et je rends grâce au ciel de la liberté que j'ai d'en disposer ; personne ne perdra par ma mort ; je n'imiterai point Pâris (le meurtrier de Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau) en me tuant. Je veux que mon dernier soupir soit utile à mes concitoyens, que ma tête portée dans Paris soit un signe de ralliement pour tous les amis des lois ! que la Montagne chancelante voie sa perte écrite avec mon sang ! que je sois leur dernière victime, et que l'univers vengé déclare que j'ai bien mérité de l'humanité ! Au reste, si l'on voyait ma conduite d'un autre œil, je m'en inquiète peu : Qu'à l'univers surpris cette grande action, Soit un objet d'horreur ou d'admiration Mon esprit, peu jaloux de vivre en la mémoire, Ne considère point le reproche ou la gloire. Toujours indépendante et toujours citoyen, Mon devoir me suffit, tout le reste n'est rien, Allez, ne songez plus qu'à sortir d'esclavage !...
« Mes parents et mes amis ne doivent point être inquiétés, personne ne savait mes projets. Je joins mon extrait de baptême à cette adresse, pour montrer ce que peut être la plus faible main conduite par un entier dévouement. Si je ne réussis pas dans mon entreprise, Français ! Je vous ai montré le chemin, vous connaissez vos ennemis; levez-vous ! Marchez ! Frappez ! »
« Pardonnez-moi, mon cher papa, d’avoir disposé de mon existence sans votre permission. J’ai vengé bien d’innocentes victimes, j’ai prévenu bien d’autres désastres. Le peuple, un jour désabusé, se réjouira d’être délivré d’un tyran. Si j’ai cherché à vous persuader que je passais en Angleterre, c’est que j’espérais garder l’incognito, mais j’en ai reconnu l’impossibilité. J’espère que vous ne serez point tourmenté. En tout cas, je crois que vous auriez des défenseurs à Caen. J’ai pris pour défenseur Gustave Doulcet : un tel attentat ne permet nulle défense, c’est pour la forme. Adieu, mon cher papa, je vous prie de m’oublier, ou plutôt de vous réjouir de mon sort, la cause en est belle. J’embrasse ma sœur que j’aime de tout mon cœur, ainsi que tous mes parents. N’oubliez pas ce vers de Corneille :
Le Crime fait la honte, et non pas l’échafaud !
C’est demain à huit heures, qu’on me juge. Ce 16 juillet. »
"First of all the book continually refers to Marie-Anne Charlotte de Corday d'Armont as Charlotte Corday and not Corday, so I do not understand the point." On the pages 182-185, it refers to "Corday". "Also if the article needs to be wikipediazed why not refer to Charlotte Corday by her first name, it will give the article a much more intimate feel." Because the article is not supposed to have an "intimate feel". It is supposed to have an encyclopaedic feel. None of us had a coffee with Corday and none of us was intimate with her. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names says that "it is preferable to refer to the person by surname, not given name, even if the subject is not controversial. The use of the given name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant." The article may have other issues, but its prose and tone are not less important than those issues. Surtsicna (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
On page 182, Cordelia Scharpf (the author) refers to Corday as Corday eight time and then cites a letter in which the subject of the article refers to Corday only once and thus, naturally, calls her "Charlotte Corday".
The situation is the same in the rest of the book. If you need to cite all five pages in order to prove my point, I will do so. Do I have to?
"In the French Wikipedia Corday is named Charlotte Corday, Miss Corday or Citizen Corday, but never Corday. So is it better to be consistent with the manual of style or with sister Wikipedia's?" Is this even a serious question? Of course consistency with the manual of style is far more important than consistency with "sister Wikipedia's". Otherwise we'd refer to Pál Schmitt as Schmitt Pál.
The example is not mine. The example was given by the community. Besides, he is referred to as Leicester when talking about events that took place after he was created Earl of Leicester. The Manual of Style explains why: "Be careful not to give someone a title too soon; for example, one should use 'Robert Dudley' or 'Dudley' when describing events prior to his elevation to the peerage in 1564."
"Robert the Bruce was officially King Robert I of Scotland, but he is generally known as Robert the Bruce, so calling him that in an article would not get any complaints." Relevance?
"Is readability for foreign language speakers not also an issue? Many foreigners contribute to this Wikipedia." Readability for English language speakers should be the only issue. I doubt someone who does not speak English would read a text in English. "Are we going to abolish calling the Pope our Holy Father?" Do we call him "Holy Father"? I haven't seen any reference to a Holy Father in the article about Pope Benedict XVI. The reason is simple - he is not everyone's holy father. Not mine, for example. But what is the point of this argument?
"Some of the readers do not understand the difference between a mistress, a lover and a prostitute. Are contributors going to have to write in 'postman Pat' English?" I am not a native speaker of English. Could you please explain to me how the difference between a mistress, a lover and a prostitute is relevant to the Corday vs. Charlotte Corday dispute?
"'The Simpsons' occupy many pages in the Wikipedia. The main characters have their own pages and these pages are sometimes considered showpiece articles. Is this is what being serious means in the Wikipedia? These are cartoon characters! And are we going to call Bart Bartholomew because that is what the manual of style says? When he is generally known as Bart, which is claimed to be an anagram of brat?" Another comment whose relevancy I can't see. I was not aware that Bart Simpson was a person. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names discusses persons, not cartoon characters. Surtsicna (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The discussion continues at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Charlotte Corday. Surtsicna (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
FYI, this whole debate happened a long time ago for Ada Lovelace (Augusta Ada King, Countess of Lovelace). Ada Lovelace is referred to as "Lovelace" in her article and Charlotte Corday should be referred to as "Corday". It doesn't matter if the pseudonymous surname was part of their real name or not, nor does it matter if they lived in the 20th Century or the 15th Century, nor does it matter if they had a more famous husband. The guidelines are actually pretty clear about this now, so I'm not sure why there is so much confusion and controversy about it. Kaldari (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is interesting. We have decided to end this discussion long ago. I just dropped by to clean the mess up (and made a hash of it). Your remark is misplaced and it reminds me of a a quote by Douglas Adams, a man I have met and greatly admire: “It is …like a man saying: And another thing…, twenty minutes after admitting he's lost the argument”. From So long, and thanks for all the fish. --JHvW (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- The difference is that Kaldari has not "lost" the argument. Besides, everyone can reply at any time (unless the discussion has been archived). His reply might serve in a future discussion. It might bring up another discussion whose goal would be an improvement of the article. It is in an appropriate section and certainly is not misplaced. Surtsicna (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Charlotte Corday's final resting place
|Charlotte Corday's final resting place.|
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
Like those of many of the victims of the Terror, her remains are at the Paris Catacombes with access Place Denfert-Rochereau in the 14th arrondissement:
This is correct. Charlotte Corday was buried in the Madeleine cemetery, as were many victims of the Terror decapitated on the Place de la Révolution: Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette,
Would you mind telling me what "Wikipedia guidelines" Frania W. is not respecting... while she "correctly states" ?
"Bizarre, comme c'est bizarre !", dixit Jouvet.
Error regarding mother's birth and death dates?
"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.188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- The dates have been removed. Thanks for pointing out this blatant error.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
"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)
- On the one hand, it's actually impossible to determine that via physical examination. However, if there's nothing to indicate that she ever had kids? My guess would be that he was descended from the same family, but not directly from Corday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
I feel that there can be some improvement to this page; as it relates to the influence that her actions had on society. Women during that time had specific roles, and her stance changed some views. Also, her bibliographical information is not that extensive, I'm hoping to find more information about who she was as an individual instead of just the act she was known for.
Kindleberger, Elizabeth R. “Charlotte Corday in Text and Image: A Case Study in the French Revolution and Women's History.” French Historical Studies, vol. 18, no. 4, 1994, pp. 969–999., www.jstor.org/stable/286725.
Thomas, Chantal. “HEROISM IN THE FEMININE: THE EXAMPLES OF CHARLOTTE CORDAY AND MADAME ROLAND.” The Eighteenth Century, vol. 30, no. 2, 1989, pp. 67–82., www.jstor.org/stable/42705725.