Talk:Giacomo Casanova

Criminal Activities

@Deor If he participated in gang rape and pedophilia, he was a criminal by any standard, it needs to be in the lede. Esszet (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

He wasn't a pedophile in the strict sense (attracted exclusively to prepubescents), and he was never prosecuted for gang rape or pedophilia, so he wasn't a convicted criminal on those counts. You may think that makes him a criminal, but things were different in the eighteenth century. One case of "gang rape" and a couple of sexual encounters with young girls are described in the text of the article, and that seems enough, without making a big point of it in the lead. I'll be interested to see what other editors say about this. Deor (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Why are you trying to nit-pick? Even if he wasn't a pedophile strictly speaking, he was clearly a sexual predator, he bought a twelve-year-old as a sex slave for Christ's sake! The article says it was clearly a case of abduction and gang rape, so why are you trying to minimize what must have been an indescribably traumatic experience for that poor, innocent woman? Does it even matter that he was never even arrested? The fact that things like that were swept under the rug back then does not change the effect it had on his victims in the slightest, the utter lack of justice only made an already traumatic experience even more traumatic. If you don't think that makes him a criminal, then I have no idea what to tell you. Just get out of here. Esszet (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The article interpreted Cassanova's words. The incident occurred during the Carnival of Venice, described as an env event that ""encouraged licence and pleasure." According to Cassanova, the woman became a willing participant after she found out that her husband was okay. The interpretation was that Cassanova had convinced himself that this was a gang bang rather than a gang rape. Read the translation & see what you make of it, & about what we can reasonably make accurate statements. I guess it depends on whether you take him at his word, since we have no other source, or render a 21st-Century judgement based on his reputation. Peaceray (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry about that, I should have known that the article may well have contained editorial interpretation on our end. We actually do have one other source: the complaint filed by the woman for the abduction of her husband. Casanova claims it explicitly states that they did no harm to the woman herself; if that's true, the event was most likely consensual (as long as they simply wouldn't have refused to include it for fear of implicating an aristocrat in such a heinous crime). I wouldn't know where to begin to look, but if someone can find it, we'd have all of the information available. Again, I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions, but my point about his relations with minors still stands: he was a predator in that respect. Esszet (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Deor, No, it isn't editorializing, it's a summary of what it already says further down in the article. Esszet (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that "Many of his exploits would be considered predatory by modern standards" is definitely editorializing. Deor (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Paedophilia

I am probably not as well-read on Casanova as most people here, but I noticed the final paragraph of the Relationships section is entirely focussed on Casanova being a paedophile. There seems to be only one citation for the whole paragraph, and it is to an academic journal behind a pay-wall. Comparing his memoirs that we have linked with the quotes this paragraph says are taking from his writings, yields no matches or comparable phrases. Any other source I can access also doesn't seem to contain these quotes.

Not only that, but the only primary sources I can find that do recount things along a similar theme seem to clearly state that he was not interested in bedding underage girls, often to the perplexity of the people trying to solicit this. Though the subject does seem to come up in writings by Casanova or about him, by his contemporaries, it does seem to consistently record that he wasn't interested in it due to both personal preference and morality.

Specifically regarding Helene, mentioned in this article section, his memoirs are an example of this. He commissioned a portrait, despite her sister trying to sell her for sex, and was, at worst, uninterested in this. E.g. "I felt no wish to obtain what it would have procured me". As an aside; Shortly afterwards, it recounts him showing the portrait to the French king, who goes on to 'procure' Helene, and things do not reflect nearly as favourably upon the king. Maybe this is worth mentioning in the article. Although it doesn't appear to be his intention, he seemed to have no compunction against (to put it sensationally) 'pimping out' Helene to the king of France.

If there are notable references to Casanova engaging in paedophilia, this certainly warrants being mentioned in this wiki page. Does that academic journal cite everything covered in the paragraph here? Could we either link to the journal's sources, or at least something publicly available that corroborates these claims and quotes? If there aren't, this entire paragraph seems like an egregious oversight. If we are using modern sources that are either making assumptions, editorialising, or offering subjective interpretations of historical sources (as, from my cursory research, the few that back this up, seem to be a minefield for), then there ought to at least be a brief explanation of that. Right now, this section looks very sensationalist and biased to me.

At best, if there is a notable amount of hearsay on the topic, it shouldn't really warrant more than a one sentence summary. Alternatively, if the conclusion is being made, only after being examined from the perspective of modern society, or from subjective interpretations of written sources, then it seems worth covering in this page, but should also make reference to that.

I added this as a subsection to Criminal Activities, as from my inexpert understanding, paedophilia was illegal in most European states at the time, though often with less rigorous definition and also usually less rigorously enforced. This probably goes without saying, but I mention it as after (possibly incorrect) inference of its use on the talk page; we should be careful if using the word 'criminal' in the article, when we mean that it would be criminal in the modern era. Llamageddon (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I just did a tiny edit to change the reference to a direct link, as it looked potentially confusing to have from this comment on a talk page. Also remembered to sign my original comment. Llamageddon (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Having looked into this further, I feel that none of these quotes are accurate, and could barely even be explained through wildly different translations. Given the chapter references, and similar passages, I assume they are taken from Casanovas memoirs, so it is strange that it is all referenced to an academic paper, rather than the work it is being quoted from. Especially as the paragraph makes no reference to the journal source directly.

I recommend this entire passage is completely rewritten. Just from trying to find the references mentioned here, I've seen at least two direct references to him interacting with underage girls, and even if suggestions of child abuse are oblique and open to interpretation, they seem perfectly valid for reference on this wiki page. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable could find something more conclusive to add. Unless that academic paper is referenced directly, I think it should be removed as a reference, and if more accurate quotes are substituted, the reference should be made to Casanova's memoirs, or whatever other source they may be from.

For reference, I have found his unabridged memoirs, which seem to include something closer to what is described currently in this paragraph of the wiki. I have no idea if it is the most accurate source, but the one currently linked on the wiki does not mention anything close to at least two of the quotes referenced currently: The Rare Unabridged London Edition Of 1894 -Llamageddon (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

TLDR: Sorry for the above lack of brevity. I replaced the reference, apparently quoting his memoirs, with a primary source, and updated the wording in line with the source material and a NPOV. Though there are not many direct references to the subject, much of this is quite disturbing by today's standards, and I am having trouble staying objective, myself. If it warrants further elaboration, I will leave it to a more qualified scholar. As far as NPOV goes; Not sure his age at the time is particularly relevant, unless it is unclear that he is an adult. I removed the reference to him specifically purchasing a "sex slave" but added context to that comment with a relevant quote from memoirs (Vol. 5 XIX). If expanded upon in the future, it may be objectively justified in referencing Grooming in relation to this, and the subsequent passage of Casanova's memoirs (Vol. 5 XX) Llamageddon (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Added talk reflist to section, with minor retroactive edits to my own comments, accordingly.Llamageddon (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Llamageddon: I'm just going to delete the whole paragraph, along with the hidden passage that precedes it. I've never been satisfied with the application of contemporary moral standards to C.'s behavior, since the attitudes toward certain sexual practices have been quite varible at different times in the past. I therefore think it best to omit the paragraph. In addition, your quotations are from the Machen translation, which was the standard one for quite a while but was based on the French of the corrupt Laforgue version. The currently best English version is the Trask translation of 1966–71, which is, I think, the only one that should be quoted in this article. Deor (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on the source and translation. I was wondering about that. Justification for deleting makes sense, given that the other alternative would be an entire section expanding upon changing moral standards, IMO. Llamageddon (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, too. I've been meaning to clear up some of the referencing in this article for quite a while but have never got around to it; there are a number of references to "Casanova (2006)", which is the Everyman's Library abridgement of Trask's translation, and they should probably be changed to give the page numbers in the full Harcourt publication of Trask's translation. I have it on my shelves but haven't had the gumption to verify and cite all the quotations in the article. Deor (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

References

"Synonymous with"

Is "womanizer" the most accurate/appropriate synonym to use? Not a hill I'm willing to die on admittedly. Added this to the talk page as I can imagine that trying to elucidate via edit summaries would not be appreciated.

I actually just got my old account back and noticed this was my only reverted edit from years ago. The comment for reversion was not very enlightening, but didn't seem unreasonable. As is often the case, I did some research to into the difference of opinion, and concluded that "seducer" was more in-keeping with the main article text and introduction. As hinted at in the comment of my very recent, but 5-year late re-edit, my main reasoning for changing the word "womanizer" is:

* It is informal English and a colloquialism
* It carries derogatory connotations
* It implies a lack of dedication or care free approach to seduction
* It is less commonly cited as, or is given less prominence than, "seducer" as a synonym for Casanova**

Because of these reasons, the word "womanizer" seems quite off-kilter with the start of the sentence it is used in, as well as with the tone of related sections of the article. It also feels like oddly weighted language to use without some further context or qualifiers, given its generally informal and derogatory common usage.

Quite possibly my "seducer" substitution isn't an improvement for different reasons, and as I say, not a hill I'd choose to die on. But both revision comments have just been a statement of personal opinion. I'm not taking anything personally here, but was hoping someone could offer some insight on the reasoning and/or we could discuss other possible alternatives.

Just an afterthought: If there is a sociological impetus to use the word "womanizer", particularly one that is related to changes in social norms and acceptable behaviours, I think that would be an interesting and potentially valuable topic to expand on in a related section of the article.

Pretty minor issue in the grand scheme of things I admit, but you can see why me trying to explain this in edit comments might have been a worse option adding a talk section.

(**)Dictionary/thesaurus sources: Chambers, Colins, MacMillan, Unabridged Oxford (print).

Llamageddon (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't like womanizer either. To me, it's a modern colloquialism and it sounds too anachronistic when used for men who lived a very long time ago. Would you write in a history book or an encyclopedia that "Klemens von Metternich was a wheeler-dealer and womanizer"? Probably not. --Lubiesque (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I like "libertine" and "roué" better than "seducer", but you may think that they're too obscure. It's seducer that sounds "weighted" and recherché to me; the word makes it sound as though C. was always pressing himself on unwilling partners. (I notice that we have an article Libertine; what do you think of using and linking that word?) Deor (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I see your point a bit better now. I think my original focus over womanizer/seducer is more to do with a literal interpretation of the words "synonymous". It probably doesn't matter if synonymous is being used in a more poetic sense, as long as this is clear to the reader. I think this still leaves some problems, as mentioned above, with womanizer.

I must admit I like libertine as an alternative. It seems very appropriate, and even its broader interpretation, beyond seductions, fits quite well with the reported character of Casanova. In fact, a lot of sources reference him as a libertine, despite this not being directly expressed in the wiki page here.

The timeline of the libertine philosophy/concept coincides quite neatly with Casanova and he is even referenced on that page as a notable libertine. Maybe this is something worth explicitly stating and expanding on in this article, too.

If we allow that the word "synonymous" in the introduction is not being used in an absolutely literal sense, then I think "libertine" is an excellent choice to describe Casanova instead of "womanizer/seducer". As a bonus, my preferred dictionary/thesaurus cites both seducer and womanizer as synonymous with libertine. Llamageddon (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Made the edit. "Libertine" is a very apt description of C. but as for being 'synonymous' I still feel like there might an even better compromise between "womanizer" sounding too informal and implying a degree of apathy, seducer sounding too literal and a bit 'clunky', and libertine being quite an esoteric choice for a synonym. If "libertine" is replaced in this context at some point, I definitely think this term should be mentioned elsewhere in the article, as C. is directly referenced as such in multiple sources and on the related wikipedia page. Llamageddon (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Incest

Casanova regularly slept with his daughter and stated no one can love their daughter more than a father can 2600:8807:8506:6B00:E009:2EBC:FA9D:862C (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

source? Crainsaw (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd especially like to see evidence that he engaged in intercourse with his daughter "regularly". Deor (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Blog with Audio Recordings

Hi, I've created a blog with voice over recordings of passages from Casanova's Histoire de ma vie in the original French with written English translations. I've only posted one recording so far, but have a number that I plan on posting. Would it be in line with Wikipedia's standards to post it in the external links? https://eroticprosimetra.wordpress.com/ Sean76783 (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I will point to the relevant guidelines, stay neutral on this, & allow others to comment.

• There is a behavioral guideline guiding citing one's own work at WP:SELFCITE. It states, Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive.
• There is also the WP:CITESPAM content guideline, which states Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion [...] and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia.

Peaceray (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

What I'll note is that the English translation appearing at the blog is hideous and definitely not Trask's translation (which is under copyright), as the blog seems to imply. Deor (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't want to post the copyrighted version. 2601:646:827E:6010:D483:CEF2:300C:5EFA (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Am making a note on each post that the English translation is not Willard Trask's. Sean76783 (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Will see if I can post the recordings to Librivox instead. Sean76783 (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

A Librivox representative told me I can't post the recordings there. Sean76783 (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)