Talk:Cyrano de Bergerac

Explain his name and origin

I must preface my remarks by saying I am not an expert in the French language, French history, or French geography, so what I say is very much open for questioning.

I'd like an explicit explanation of his name and origin. The article says he was born in Paris rather than Gascony as had been believed. But what is the basis for the incorrect belief? Is it simply an assumption from the name "de Bergerac"? Or is there more to it?

Firstly, based on the "wide" definition in the article about Gascony, Bergerac is in not in Gascony. Of course, Gascony is vaguely defined and the borders of that time were in flux. But Bergerac was within the 1477 borders of Guyenne (see map in that article). It is clearly within the Dordogne department in the province of Guyenne. See: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vidal-Lablache_n°9_-_Provinces_en_1789.jpg

Secondly, "de Bergerac" is described in the French article as his dit name. In an earlier discussion of his name, an editor wrote 'The French article is titled “Savinien de Cyrano de Bergerac” and begins “Savinien de Cyrano, dit de Bergerac” (Savinien de Cyrano, called de Bergerac).' The dit name is sometimes described as a nickname, but that's not quite right because it had legal status. The article Dit Name focuses on French-Canadian genealogy. The Military and Paramilitary Organizations section of the article Pseudonym has a better explanation. Cyrano de Bergerac, as most know him, or an ancestor could have acquired that surname for reasons other than coming from the commune Bergerac. It might have been ironical, perhaps because he had some characteristic in common with people from the commune. Or it might be that his first contact with the army occurred with a unit from that commune. Nothing can be assumed. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The article (via the French article) states that the estate was “at Mauvières and Bergerac in the Vallée de Chevreuse”. See Note 11 for an explanation of how the name Bergerac became attached to land a long way from Guyenne. ⚜ Moilleadóir ✍ 03:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Alleged Homosexuality

There's not a shred of real evidence as to Cyrano's sexual tastes. Trying to enroll him as a homosexual is specious and deceptive. Since his so-called 'lover' (based on no evidence) was the object of so much unfriendly writing by Cyrano, we can't take any view on the subject. But someone with an agenda does take a view in the article. When did Wikipedia become the site for hunches and guesses? 47.232.145.208 (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Incidental trivia

‘Cyrano's short life is poorly documented’ is no excuse for supplying instead reams of incidental information about his forebears and family. Does no one understand the concept of précis? 86.26.82.191 (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll start an extensive trim. Some of the details are cited, but if they are WP:UNDUE I'll remove them as well. I also intend to consolidate the "Life" section into the "Life and Works" section. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I spent a long time working on that info, translated from the French article which has a much more academic tone as they seem to have some respect for the person.

The point of all the biographical information is that (a) it’s a biography and (b) there has historically been a lot of disinformation about this man, largely caused by a work of fiction, e.g. continuing nonsense about him being Gascon. Rostand’s play should not be mentioned in the Life and works section AT ALL, since it has nothing to do with Cyrano’s life or works. I also see the play now takes prime position for evidence of how he died! It seems Wikipedia is preferring fiction over fact these days. Why no mention of the (sketchy) account given in the prologue of Les États et Empires de la Lune? Le Bret is often considered unreliable, but he is at least a contemporary source.

I have no time to do the archaeological digging required, but it looks like people have reverted or re-introduced a lot of the cruft I removed years ago.

Since there’s are already separate articles about the play and the films based on the play, I can’t see why they need more than a line each plus a link, if that. I think those kind of things are much more important than whether there is too much info about his background (which is the result of scholars carefully disproving the Gascon origin). ⚜ Moilleadóir ✍ 07:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

No nose?

I'm surprised to find that the article makes no mention of Cyrano's iconic attribute, his nose.

Shouldn't it be included, whether it was real or an invention or whatever, as it seems to be the one thing immediately associateed with Cyrano? --Syzygy (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Sure, if you find a WP:RS that discusses his nose in depth, we can summarize it in the article. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition for three reasons. First, I didn't see that the source supports the claim of "best known for". Second, it mentions the nose a couple times, but doesn't actually discuss it as a significant aspect of de Bergerac. Finally, the article appears to be about the character Cyrano de Bergerac, not the real human this article describes. EducatedRedneck (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, then let's just let it be. Syzygy (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Big nose from 1897 or 1654?

On 22 August 2025 user Syzygy followed up his "No nose?" talk section (above) by adding a nose mention in the article, namely that "The play includes elements of the life of the 17th-century novelist and playwright Cyrano de Bergerac, along with elements of invention and myth. It is here that the iconic huge nose of Cyrano was invented; there is no historical basis for that feature." In doing so, he cited a webpage at encyclopedia.com that states "The real-life Cyrano was, like his fictional counterpart, both a soldier and a writer, his famously large nose, however, was Rostand’s invention.". Good work by Syzygy, nicely written, and certainly well-intentioned ... BUT ... I reckon encyclopedia.com's assertion that Cyrano's large nose was invented by Rostand is UNTRUE for several reasons.

Firstly, the encyclopedia webpage is BADLY WRITTEN (and an early indication is the absence of a much-needed semicolon in the sentence quoted above). The cited webpage mentions Cyrano's nose 30 times (!), starting with "The hero, again with a very large nose, woos the woman he loves for another, more handsome man." (stating "again" when there's been no mention before? That's bad web-editing!)

Secondly, it has FOUR key mentions of the "origin" of his big nose, the fourth of which TOTALLY CONTRADICTS the previous three:

• In section Author Biography: "Rostand delivered a heroic comedy about a swashbuckling poet with an abnormally large nose, a tale based on his own favorite writer. The real-life Cyrano was, like his fictional counterpart, both a soldier and a writer, his famously large nose, however, was Rostand’s invention."
• In section Romanticism: "The real de Bergerac was indeed both a soldier and a writer, but Rostand added one distinguishing element: a very large nose."
• In section Character: "By basing the character of Cyrano on a real historical figure, Rostand was able to use the most interesting aspects of the real de Bergerac and then embellish by adding details such as the incredibly large nose."
• In section Real-life parallels: "The real-life Cyrano of the 1600s, on whom Rostand based his main character, was an expert swordsman and a soldier in addition to being a poet. A swaggering but heroic man, Cyrano lived dangerously. Like Rostand’s character, he had a grotesque nose and an irascible temper."

Thirdly, one just has to look at the ABNORMALLY LARGE nose in Cyrano's portrait! (ie. the image Savinien_de_Cyrano_de_Bergerac.JPG). It's a contemporaneous portrait - Wikimedia details it as dated 1654 and "drawn and engraved by an artist who signed with a monogram, after a painting by Zacharie Heince." Incidentally a French wikipedia article about Antoine-Léonor_Houdin has additional info about the portrait not stated anywhere else: it translates as "Portrait of Cyrano de Bergerac drawn and engraved by an artist who signed with a monogram, after a painting by Zacharie Heince. Long remaining anonymous because specialists had been unable to decipher the monogram, the engraving was traced by Rémi Mathis to Antoine-Léonor Houdin in 2022." Rémi Mathis is a French historian and curator, and was president of Wikimedia France from 2011-2014, so I reckon the new info is 100% reliable and worth adding to the English Cyrano portrait text.

So - the article's mention of Cyrano's nose (his "iconic attribute", as Syzygy neatly described it in his talk), needs corrective surgery. Pete Hobbs (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)