Talk:Józefa Joteyko

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

M. Garner[edit]

"1903 co-honor with M. Garnier for the Lallemand Prize of the French Academy of Sciences" - I think the M. may stand for Madame, French sources use MM. Garnier which is definitely madame. Digging suggests her name might have been Garnier-Cololian (Garnier et Cololian, lit Garnier and Cololian), or it can just be a co-author surname and a red herring. Maybe someone with better French can dig out her name? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe Ipigott can help here? French is very difficult for me. SusunW (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Ipigott Both of these links are about the prize. [1] or [2] All I get out of that is that he works with mental maladies and then I found this, which may well be him? [3] pg. 140. Your thoughts? SusunW (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
And while you are looking at that, I think this says Joteyko and Kipiani won the Prix Vernois in 1908, but I don't know whose prize that was or anything else the article might say.[4] Thanks! SusunW (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
SusunW: M. (if it is not an initial) means Monsieur and MM. means Monsieur et Madame. So MM. Garnier means Mr and Mrs Garnier. I could not find any reference to Garnier in your third source. And I'm afraid I could not find out any more about the Prix Vernois.--Ipigott (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Ipigott The sentence on page 140 says "On trouvera des indications intéressantes sur ce mode de traitement dans l’ouvrage publié en 1901 par MM. Paul Garnier et Cololian sur la thérapeutique des maladies mentales et nerveuses." From your interpretation then is this a couple with the same surname or is one person Garnier and the other Cololian? And thanks for looking at the newspaper article. SusunW (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
SusunW: In this context, MM. means Messieurs, in other words Monsieur Paul Garnier and Monsieur Cololian. You'll see there is quite at bit more here and from this I see it's Paul Garnier and Paul Cololian. There's a short article on Cololian on the FR wiki. This should give you something to chew on!--Ipigott (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Piotrus: Thank you both. Piotrus for asking the question and Ian for helping me solve it. I truly appreciate your help in getting things sorted. It does take a village! SusunW (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Lesbian/LGBT categories[edit]

I think we need a better content in the article (quotes) to conclude she was a lesbian/LGBT. The articles, currently, only implies it slightly. Whi says this, clearly? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus It's a dilemma. You will note in the text I didn't use the term. There isn't really such a category as "Boston marriagites", but I've added a note explaining the difficulty in Polish history and academic research with classifying their relationships. Szot clearly makes the argument that they were same-sex partners as well as concluding they (Joteyko-Stefanowska, and then Joteyko-Grzegorzewska) were a family unit. He cites Otton Lipkowski, as does Kolbuszewska, who described their relationship thus "Shortly after Józefa's arrival in Paris she was visited by her friend Michalina Stefanowska, with whom she has already had close ties since their joint training in Geneva. They lived together in Paris in a modest room in the Latin Quarter at Rue de la Glacière 19. More practical and economical Michalina Stefanowska took over the house, ran the farm, and rescued her friend from all the worries and troubles associated with it." Kolbuszewska states that she had difficulties because of her relationships with women. Stec says that Janina Doroszewska published that the friendship between Grzegorzewska and Joteyko was transformative for them both and that Grzegorzewska "Kochała ją zwyczajnie i prosto" (plain and simply loved Joteyko), while for Joteyko their relationship was her greatest joy. pp=30-31. Clearly the relationships were deep and meaningful and different from binary definitions. If you have suggestions on categorization, I am open to them. SusunW (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus I found a category Same-sex relationships, but am unsure if you would find that better or not. SusunW (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
SusunW Thank you for teaching me a new concept (Boston marriage). But in this case, I am unsure if the sources are clear on the line between friendship, being a roommate, and cohabitation/non-platonic relationships. At least that's based on the quote you cite. I did check Stec, but while she used the word love, that paragraph generally talks about friendship (I can quote from it at length and provide at translation, if you'd like). The point is, while the world love is used, in the context of that paragraph it implies love for a dear friend, not a sexual love. (A note about Polish language: IMHO Poles use the word 'friend' much less often then English people; i.e. in Polish, friend means what in English would be a 'close friend', since in English there is not much difference between friend and colleague/acquaintance). If you could provide better quotes that would imply a sexual relationship, I certainly would reconsider. So I'd use Stec certainly to source a claim they were close friends, but I'd don't see it as allowing us to claim any LGBT relationship. Btw, why isn't Stec cited in the article at all? PS. If you are interested in this, I'd be happy to collaborate on the article about Maria Konopnicka, a much more famous person (since her works are read in Polish schools). That article would likely be a better place for such categories, as there is some discussion of her possible (still, disputed, I think) leanings in that direction. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus I didn't find Stec until I started working on Grzegorzewska. I've read the paragraphs Stec wrote numerous times and they indicate to me that the relationship was one beyond just friendship. She called it mysterious, and more than an intimate acquaintance, a meeting of "inner depth" which united them into a full human. One doesn't have to have a sexual component to be part of the LGBT community, as the full acronym LGBTTQIA includes asexual relationships. To me, from the sources we have it is really clear that all of Joteyko's significant personal relationships were with women. The actual nature of them, I do not know, but, same-sex relationships seems pertinent and implies nothing about sexuality. Their correspondence seems to be at least partially extent. Maybe some day some brave academic in Poland will delve into the subject. Funny that you mention Konopnicka as this whole pocket of Polish women I have been working on started when I wrote about her partner Maria Dulębianka. I'd be happy to work with you on Konopnicka when we finish Grzegorzewska. SusunW (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
SusunW: I think you cover this very well in your note at the foot of the article. I must say I was initially rather struck by your implication that their relationship extended beyond friendship but am increasingly sympathetic to your views. "Both a personal and professional relationship" expresses it nicely. In this respect, the article looks fine to me. Pity there aren't less decisive categories than those associated with LGTB for women who developed a deep personal relationship but who were not necessarily lesbians.--Ipigott (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Ipigott and SusunW I am inclined to agree we need more categories, but I find it a bit difficult to see where we draw the line between "significant personal relationship" and the old-fashioned concept of friendship. Let me quote from Stec:
I am sorry I don't have time to translate this in detail, but this is all about friendship. I bolded the Polish word for friend(s) and friendship - it occurs SEVENTEEN times in that passage. While it is possible their relationship was sexual in nature, there is no indication of it in that passage, which only argues that they were close friends. And a close friend can love another one as a friend without it entering into a LGBTTQIA realm (huh, no article on that yet?). And even if the QIA part is debatable, our categories are for LGBT and IMHO there is no sufficient evidence that they were more than just close friends and justifying the usage of the LGBT categories. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus It is obviously causing stress, which I never want to do, so I will remove the LGBT categories but leave the project designation, if that is an acceptable compromise. Readers in general will not take note of the project information, but it may provide insight into the variations of relationships for project members and researchers. SusunW (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
SusunW That is certainly fair. And I'd be happy to comment on any discussion about new categories, feel free to ping me if you think my input would be helpful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus I totally agree we need more categories, especially for historic situations which have no (or tentative) ties to the current reality. I'll approach the project and see if I get any feedback. SusunW (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)