#simone bertière

[holybridget]

Simone Bertière - Henri IV et la Providence.

[histoireettralala]

The ordeal of Jeanne de France.

"The contemporaries first pitied the handsome young man chained to such a wife. They didn't have for the disabled, very many at the time, the compassion we think we must show. Facing Jeanne, abruptly ripped from her protective cocoon, the newcomers did not hesitate- and first of all her husband. What did she feel reading repulsion in their gazes, hearing hurtful words ? We know she cried. She never had, in any case, a word of complaint, a gesture of rebellion against her fate, a move of anger against the one who showered her with snubs. "Madame, talk to Monsieur", Monsieur de Linières told her refering to her brand new husband, "and show him some semblance of love"- "I wouldn't dare speak to him", she answered, "for you and anyone can see he doesn't take account of me." Her only answer to contempt and snubs will be patience, silent modesty.

Such benignity was bound to attract praise: "She is good, she is the best among the best women", "good and honest before God and before men." Goodness, kindness, which were uncautiously taken, and wrongfully, for weakness. Actually, Jeanne was strong, much stronger than her proud husband.

At fourteen, Louis is a spoiled child, temperamental, unable to master his fits of temper, given without restrain to the impulses of a precocious sensuality. At twelve, Jeanne is composed, thoughtful, mature: consequence of trials and education. Those who cared for her knew how to prepare her- on the orders of Louis XI ?- to a life that would be difficult. They found great resources in her: she is intelligent and brave. And she is supported by her ardent faith, which suffering will only stimulate. She adheres to to the order of the world which is the order of Providence. Conscious of her duties as a daughter, as a wife, she unquestioningly accepts what was decided for her. And God knows she needs strength to bow without a complaint to the unbearable! She endures. She obeys. She comes when asked, goes away when sent away, docile to the contradictory demands of confronting father and husband, trying to satisfy both of them, never asking for anything, accepting the exclusion owed to her deformities. Without ever abasing herself however: simple, humble, dignified.

She loved Louis, we are told, against all odds, unrequitedly. Let's refrain from building upon those words a novel of unhappy love: the gap is too wide between the mindset of her era and ours for us to be able to judge of her feelings. What is certain on the other hand, is that marriage is for her a total commitment and a sacrament in the full meaning of the word. And it demands absolute devotion, whatever happens.

For twenty-two years, she will display treasures of devotion at Louis' service, brave enough at first to endure the violence of a wayward teenager, then intelligent and wise enough to try to establish, with a man weakened by sickness and captivity, a manner of tolerable relationship.

[...]

With the death of the old king, the same year, Louis regains hope and his arrogance comes back. He was seized with anger when seeing Jeanne arrive in Amboise, but managed, on his friends' advice, not to appear too unfavorably with her. He had to disarm distrust to act in a hidden manner. He discreetly asked from Rome a request for cancellation and, anticipating upon the result, went in Brittany to request the hand of little Anne, then aged seven. The project, quickly leaked, rightly worried Anne de Beaujeu, who governed on behalf of her brother. And Louis carelessly provided her all the weapons she needed to cut him down: he plotted during the Etats-Généraux, indiscriminately switched between acts of rebellion and acts of submission, finally chose the cause of the Duke of Brittany and was drawn into his defeat. Made prisoner in Saint-Aubain-du-Cormier, he paid by three years of captivity his participation to the Mad War.

Relocated from castle to castle and always closely watched over, he doesn't benefit from the amnesty granted to other rebellious leaders. Because he persists in wanting to break his marriage, which he claims is the only cause of his revolt, and he keeps up his pretentions to the hand of the Breton Duchess. Hence the harshness of the treatment he receives from a fierce keeper: he suffers from hunger, from cold, from enforced chastity, from all kinds of vexations. Loyal Jeanne appears, whom he first rudely greets before self-interest compells him to be more amiable. She promises him to intervene to alleviate his detention and actually earns his transfer in the big tower of Bourges, where he will spend two years. Little comfort, no chance of escape, but a few contacts with the outside, and most of all visits from Jeanne, who tells him about her steps to have him freed.

There was nothing to hope for from her sister Anne de Beaujeu, who, as a good politician, did not entertain the idea of setting the troublemaker free. Jeanne addressed her two moving letters who reached us, but left Anne cold. She felt she would find a better audience in her brother Charles VIII, annoyed by his older sister's tutelage, and ready to feel sorry for the fate of a cousin who had overseen his entry into knighthood. She threw herself at his feet and, if we believe a tale of the time, spoke a language that was both moving and skillful, mixing apologies for the past with promises for the future, tugging at the string of generosity: " Believe me, you will gain more glory by giving your hand to a vanquished enemy than you gained by triumphing over him." Charles VIII yielded to her prayers, not without giving her a sort of warning: "You will have, sister, the one who causes your regrets; and may it please Heaven that you don't repent someday of what you have done for him".

Simone Bertière- Les Reines de France au temps des Valois- Le Beau XVIe siècle.

Gaëlle Bona as Jeanne de France, in Louis XI, le Pouvoir fracassé

[captain-caecily]

“Si Louis XIV lui a vraiment tenu ces propos « je ne vous ai pas rendue heureuse… », cela veut dire qu’il a cherché auprès d’elle une relation authentique. L’a-t-elle rendu heureux ? C’est probable, sans quoi il ne s’adresserait pas ce reproche. Il a trouvé en elle, en dépit des inévitables frictions de la vie commune, la compagne qu’il attendait. Elle lui a procuré, dans les coulisses du spectacle permanent qu’était la cour, les agréments d’une vie privée. “

- Simone Bertière, Les femmes du roi-soleil

[vivelareine]

Hi! I was hoping you could answer something for me because I'm debating about it somewhere. Did Marie Antoinette pretend to be a peasant/farmer at the hameau at the Petit Trianon?

She didn't. There is no evidence that Marie Antoinette ever pretended to be a farmer, milkmaid/dairymaid, shepherdess, peasant, and so on at the hameau de la reine.

The idea that she and her entourage were playing "village" can be traced to the non-contemporary names given to the buildings during the First Empire period. These building names (vicar's house, etc) gave the false impression that they were pretend "houses" used to simulate a fake village. Whereas in reality, the buildings all had specific purposes, whether they were recreational buildings intended for the elite people or practical buildings intended for the workers.

Like other historical myths, it gets repeated enough times and suddenly it's "true," showing up in books as fact without vetting, being depicted in film (La Revolution Francaise where she milks cows, etc).

But when you go back to the sources, there's no evidence for it. Only evidence that she treated the hameau de la reine like any elite woman would have treated a country estate: she was the mistress who hired employees to do the labor, and "managed it" like an elite woman would manage a country house, and enjoyed its recreations. Approving livestock orders that the head farmer requested, asking for reports on the status of crops, etc. Hosting dinners there, taking walks, tasting the dairy products made in her name, etc.

Another common myth is that she was milking perfumed cows, petting beribboned sheep, etc. Again, all false. I also sometimes see people deride the fact that she asked for a goat that had a good temper, which such an odd thing to pick on. The head farmer complained about the original goat because the original goat was an asshole (not his contemporary words, of course) so wanted to make sure the next goat wasn't Black Philip incarnate.

IMO, the hameau is novel in a different sense; because Marie Antoinette chose to include both practical and recreational buildings integrated into the same space, she created a unique type of estate which didn't hide away the practical labor used to create elite recreation; unlike similar "hameau" estates, which relied on practical production in other spaces (either out of necessity due to lack of space/ability, or specifically done in order to remove the visual of the labor) the hameau de la reine did not shy away from the practical aspect.

With this in mind, though, the hameau in general has taken on an additional mythical quality thanks largely to the aesthetics of the Sofia Coppola film, which depicts Marie Antoinette and her entourage laying in the grass, petting sheep, skipping around, digging in the dirt for strawberries, etc. It's important to remember that these are modern interpretations of how the estate was enjoyed, and not necessarily based in reality. But it has definitely made an impression on pop culture--see how the Secret Versailles of Marie Antoinette docudrama portrayed the Petit Trianon as a whole as if it came out of the Coppola film.

Back to the hameau as a fake village/fake farm, Marie Antoinette pretending to be a peasant in a blissful surrounding myth: It's a myth which developed in the 1800s, after her death, around the same time that "Let them eat cake" began to stick to Marie Antoinette. Rhe contemporary criticism of the hameau was about its secrecy and privacy, about the supposed sexual and then political dealings going on there, about its expense.

Which was, of course, extraordinary compared to any amount of income the average person would make in their lifetime, though it wasn't statistically notable when it came to French finances--and as I've pointed out before, other royals spent far more but received none of the vehement criticism and dangerous dehumanization for it. Mesdames chateau & hameau at Bellevue cost 96% more than Marie Antoinette’s Petit Trianon chateau & hameau de la reine, and they were not dehumanized and degraded like MA for it, by contemporaries or later historians/writers. One of Mesdames even wrote a letter romanticizing the sounds of the servants at their hameau, and no one’s ever really made a big deal of it.

Both myths (fake village, pretend villager) served in the 19th century to develop the concept of Marie Antoinette as someone who thought that the peasants had a pretty sanitized lifestyle., either out of naivety or maliciousness.

While the real Marie Antoinette certainly couldn't empathize with what it was like to be poor, she expressed sympathy throughout her life and had a surprisingly astute understanding of the impact of a lack of bread (see the letter written they day after the October 1793 march on Versailles) on people's behavior and actions. She didn't think that their lives were represented by the hameau de la reine.

The hameau de la reine was a romanticized notion of a secluded countryside elite estate combined with a mixture of whimsical fantasy, the faux cracks & weathering designed to make it appear when you approached as if it was a mysterious place that had always been there.

Marie Antoinette did not imagine she was a peasant or that this was peasant life, nor was this an attempt to create a sanitized version of peasant life sans poverty and real peasants. I think people often confuse the notion of Marie Antoinette wanting a "simpler" life with Marie Antoinette trying to pretend she wasn't a queen; this was not the case. She never forgot she was an elite woman; she simply wanted to enjoy the type of less-rigid elite life that wasn't uncommon in other European royals, but which was considered unusual and in Marie Antoinette's case, unforgivable for a queen of France.

Some further reading:

Pierre de Nolhac, The Trianon of Marie Antoinette (1925)

Meredith Martin, Dairy Queens: The Politics of Pastoral Architecture from Catherine de' Medici to Marie-Antoinette (2011)

Simone Bertière, The Indomitable Marie-Antoinette (2014)

And to recommend something I wrote, Let's Visit! The Laiterie de Préparation at the Hameau de La Reine, I talk a bit about the practical/working dairy and my thoughts on the novel integration of the working dairy into the hameau as a whole.

[queenfredegund]

Bonjour ! Dans un de vos billets, je lis "team Louis XV!" et j'avoue que je connais très peu finalement ce roi. Quels documents me conseilleriez-vous pour mieux cerner l'homme et le souverain ? Merci beaucoup d'avance 🙂

Bonjour ! Avec grand plaisir ! Voici une petite liste non exhaustive de mes lectures ou de mes recommandations : 

La Reine et la Favorite, de Simone Bertière : pour commencer à se familiariser avec le règne à travers les vies des femmes de son entourage, ce qui permet d’avoir un panorama de sa cour, de son entourage et de sa politique.

Louis XV, de Jean-Christian Petitfils : je ne connais pas la biographie, mais son Louis XIV était de bonne facture, donc je pense que ça vaut peut-être le coup d’y jeter un oeil aussi ! 

Louis XV, un portrait et  Louis XV et sa cour, de Bernard Hours : je n’ai pas lu sa biographie consacrée, seulement son ouvrage sur la cour : plus scientifique, on est vraiment sur du travail d’historien et d’universitaire, mais très intéressant une fois qu’on a bien repéré les noms de tout le monde.

Mesdames de France : Les filles de Louis XV, de Bruno Cortequisse : comme son titre l’indique, on repart du côté des femmes, les princesses de France cette fois-ci, donc pas encore du Louis XV directement, mais les relations qu’il avait avec ses filles sont très significatives de sa mentalité.

Voilà pour moi, bonne lecture en tout cas (faut foncer sur le Simone Bertière, grand must pour commencer à appréhender n’importe quel règne entre les Valois et les Bourbons /o/)

[bunniesandbeheadings]

Do you have any book recs for French Rev histories? ESP focusing on the faves, Marie Antoinette and Robespierre?

Oh, Marie-Antoinette and Robespierre are both the favs? Very, very different and contradicting historiography on the two of these folks, ha ha. But honestly? That might be a really cool jumping off point to study the French Revolution because I guarantee you that you will immediately notice the 180 differences in analyses of the Revolution by their respective biographers so that’ll be a lot of fun!! 

For Marie-Antoinette, I honestly am going to defer to @vivelareine or @tiny-librarian or @peremadeleine. But assuming you prefer English, I would personally recommend Simone Bertière’s The Indomitable Marie-Antoinette. It’s incredibly detailed and studies Antoinette’s life for its auspicious beginning to its  end. 

Also, I really John Hardman’s new biography on her. Warning: as I joked about before, Hardman has an...irrational hatred for Louis XVI (and Robespierre, but that’s less irrational and has more internal logic with Hardman’s belief system) so calibrate accordingly. He also accepts the largely debunked theory that Antoinette was having an affair with Fersen. Nonetheless, I think he does a good job focusing on Antoinette’s integrity as a political animal, which I don’t think I’ve seen explored very often? I’ve often complained on this blog about how a lot of Antoinette’s admirers strip her of political agency, almost under the assumption that the only way a woman can be sympathetic is if she is entirely passive in regards to her fate and Hardman decidedly does not fall into that trap. His Antoinette is a politician, pure and simple. (Er...or rather she becomes a politician. He does seem to think that she spent a lot of her early reign fucking around, but honestly, if I was a nineteen year old queen I’d fuck around too.) 

But I say this fully aware that one of the three people I tagged might immediately eviscerate that recommendation because I haven’t really dug through the citations or anything? I read about Antoinette mostly for fun and not like, in any serious sense, so I’m not as ‘in the know’ about her as I might be. 

As for Robespierre and the French Revolution, I wrote a list of recommendations awhile back that I still stand by. Have fun!

[leroichevalier]

History 5 meme → Top 5 historical non-fiction: : Marie Antoinette, L’insoumise (The indomitable Marie Antoinette), Simone Bertière (2002) (5/5).

tagged by my darling @eireneofathens, here’s hers.

[ofmodernmyths]

10 & 11 please - I'm always looking for book recs!

10. Favorite historical novel

Funnily enough, I’m not too big on historical novels... When I was a kid, I really enjoyed Christian Jacq’s 5 tomes series on Ramses II (The Son of Light, The Temple of a Million Years, The Battle of Kadesh, The Lady of Abu Simbel & Under the Western Acacia) but apparently they’re not the most accurate ever lol. Still made for a very pleasant reading though. 

Also all the historical murder mysteries starring Brother Cadfael and written by Ellis Peters! It’s set in medieval England during the civil war between King Stephen and Empress Maud (12th century).

Also, I’m not one to read a lot of romance overall, but I really enjoyed Mary, Queen of France by Jean Plaidy, which is about the love story between Mary Tudor (sister of Henry VIII) and Charles Brandon. Really sweet

11. Favorite nonfiction history book

I can’t pick just one lol. I’ll try to do one per historical era (according to my tagging system anyway):

Alexander of Macedon by Peter Green, the ultimate Alexander the Great biography (and yeah okay, not Hephaestion-friendly, but I have another book for that)

Pourquoi Byzance? by Michel Kaplan (the specialist of Byzance history in France), an introduction to Byzance history that’s really interesting, although a bit dry. For references in English, I would suggest asking @mmedemaintenon who knows the topic a lot better than I do

La seconde gloire de Rome by Jean Delumeau which about the second “golden” age of Rome between 1450 and 1660. A fascinating read for sure (but once again, I would suggest asking @mmedemaintenon for recs in English... also @janiedean might have some references on the topic too)

Le divan d’Istanbul by Alessandro Barbero, an introduction to the history of the Ottoman empire (original written in Italian and translated in French). Very interesting. If you want English recs, @sansaregina would be a good pick...

Isabella of Castile by Giles Tremlett but I’ve been told it has some inaccuracies in it so... (his biography of Katherine of Aragon is fire though, and I hope he’ll write one of Mary I)

For books recs about the Tudors, if you’re interested, I’ll do a specific rec post because this is getting too long already lol

Simone Bertière’s series on the Queens of France since the Renaissance up to the French Revolution, it’s fire, period. 

Le chagrin et le venin by Pierre Laborie, a look at the memory of WWII in France. Intense. 

That’s without counting the fact that I currently have 12 books on my to-read list, so... yeah lol. For recs about a more specific period/historical figure, ask away! 

[histoireettralala]

@joachimnapoleon ​ tagged me to post my 2021 reading list plans. It’s very likely to change but nowadays I would say, in no particular order:

Louis XIII, by Jean-Christian Petitfils

Histoire de la Chine, by John K. Fairbank & Merle Goldman

La guerre de Trente Ans, by Henry Bogdan

Condé, le héros fourvoyé, by Simone Bertière

Lasalle, the Hussar General, by John H. Lewis

They shall not pass: the French Army on the western front, 1914-1918, by Ian Sumner

Battle Cry of Freedom, by James M. McPherson

I plan to get a good biography of Napoleon but am still undecided on which one for now.

I also wish to take some time for authors that aren’t historians, reacquaint myself with French authors and maybe discover literature from other countries  (China, Spain, and Russia feature among those I want to know better).

Tagging the usual suspects, @microcosme11 ​, @bougredane ​, @elisabeth515 ​, @aetheryn ​, and anyone who wants to partake :)

@clove-pinks tagged me to post my 2021 reading list plans. Here are the main books I’m hoping to get through in the coming year, in no particular order:

The Campaigns of Napoleon, by David Chandler

Murat, by Vincent Haegele

Wolf Hall, by Hilary Mantel

Mastery, by Robert Greene

War & Peace, by Leo Tolstoy

Abe: Abraham Lincoln in His Times, by David S. Reynolds

Tecumseh and the Prophet, by Peter Cozzens

Catastrophe 1914: Europe Goes to War, by Max Hastings

Napoleon in Egypt, by Paul Strathern

Tagging @histoireettralala, @microcosme11, @suburbanbeatnik, @elisabeth515, @ami46 and anyone else who wants to partake. :)

[winterhalters]

history meme (french edition)  →  5 men (1/5) Henri III.

“Henri was his mother's favorite [...] for he seemed perfect to her in all things. It appeared early in his life that he not only inherited the Medici intelligence, but the Medici look as well, and in the end, very little from the Valois.” –  Simone Bertière, Les Années Sanglantes.

[histoireettralala]

Today in History: Le coup de majesté de Louis XIII.

Marie de Medici had a favorite, Leonora Galigaï. This Florentine servant, of very humble origin, passed for her foster sister, although she was a little older. At her service since her birth, she had never left her. Intelligent and dedicated, confidant of her hopes, associated with her joys and sorrows, she became indispensable to her. Marie had demanded that she follow her to France. But to stay with the queen, she needed a presentable husband. Concino Concini was not, whatever may have been said, an adventurer, but a cadet of excellent Florentine nobility, a dissident and living by his wits, therefore quite ready to come to terms with her ugliness. A very bright future seemed promised to them.

[..]

The Etats-Généraux had coincided with the majority of Louis XIII. Proclaimed on his thirteenth birthday, according to custom, it made him in principle a sovereign in full exercise. The following year, his marriage to the Infanta Anne of Austria - paired with that of his sister Elisabeth with the future Philip IV of Spain - made him fully an adult. Pure appearance, despite official claims. Durably traumatized by the assassination of his father, deeply reticent towards his mother, he was an immature, silent and secretive adolescent [..] He was taken for a simple-minded person and they doubted that he would ever be able to govern. [..]

She had changed nothing in the organs of government and left most of the office holders in place, but Concini had risen in rank. Promoted Marquis d'Ancre, Marshal of France, he tried to carve out for himself a position in Normandy which equaled him to the best houses in France. In their private hôtel in the rue de Tournon, the couple led a brilliant life - not without arousing jealousy and resentment, fed by xenophobia. Brash, arrogant and brutal, the husband stirred a lot of air without worrying about what others would say. His wife, more astute and more prudent, was politically minded. Perceiving the danger, she wanted to retire to Florence.

[..]

In the spring of 1617, a clap of thunder broke out in a serene sky [..] While no one expected it, the young king came out of his apparent inertia and brutally seized power.

On April 24, at the end of the morning, Concini, flanked by about fifty bodyguards, went to the Louvre as every day by his ordinary path, on the east facade of the building. He crossed the old walls of Philippe Auguste by the Porte de Bourbon without noticing, because he was reading a letter, that this door was closing behind him, separating him from his escort. He approached the two successive bridges overhanging the ditches and leading to the filtering window which marked the entrance to the castle. There he bumped into a handful of men surrounding the Marquis de Vitry, who grabbed his arm and said: "In the name of the king, I am arresting you."

He barely had time to shout his surprise. Already pistol shots were firing that shot him down. Outside, his terrorized companions fled [..] The shots had been heard up to the first floor of the palace where Louis XIII was plagued with anxiety. When his governor, d'Ornano, announced to him in one word: "It is done", he advanced to the window of the courtyard from which rose an ovation. "Thank you! Many thanks to you!" he cried to his Gardes-Françaises. "Thanks to you, I am king!" He was only fifteen and a half years old.

So people tried to attribute the responsibility for this coup to his entourage [..] In any case, no one was then unaware of the young king's hatred for Concini, the fruit of a long period of humiliations. The arrogant marshal considered him irrelevant and had made the great mistake of letting him see it. His very graces were offenses in the eyes of this wounded soul: how dare they offer him what was rightfully his? [..] One thing is certain in any case: he authorized his killing. The interview where the decision was taken took place in two stages. On the need to eliminate Concini, all agreed. The first idea was to take him, imprison him and bring him to justice. Easier said than done! Approached to take charge of the operation, the protagonists deflected. They found in the person of the Marquis de Vitry a man ready for anything, on the condition, however, of being covered to the end. When he received the order to arrest Concini, he asked the crucial question which had hitherto been eluded: "But Sire, if he defends himself, what does His Majesty want me to do?" Everyone suspected that he would defend himself. As Louis was silent, Deageant replied: "The king intends that he be killed." And the king remained silent. Silence is consent. [..]

Another major consequence of Concini's elimination was the sidelining of Marie de Medici. The desire to shake off her tutelage may have weighed on her son as much as the hatred for her protege. Through the hated favorite, he was accomplishing in a roundabout way the first stage of a political matricide which would find its full completion fourteen years later.

[...]

At the time, the joy aroused by Concini's death obscured the political implications. Richelieu, stunned, took some time to see them. The victim, whose limits he had measured, inspired him no regrets and he believed at first that he would have a freer field in the ministry. His colleague Barbin opened his eyes: "Sir, are you jesting, thinking that the repercussions of all this will not fall on us?" When he did indeed present himself at the Louvre, the king, then climbed onto a billiard table from which he was haranguing a half-hysterical assembly, called out sharply: "Well, Luçon, here I am, rid of your tyranny. Come on, come on, sir, get out of here! " Although he had known him within the framework of his religious or political functions, it was their first contact that escaped the agreed forms. It was rough [...]

The next day had a very trying experience in store for him. Concini's body had been placed provisionally in a vault in the church of Saint-Germain l'Auxerrois. But the enraged people succeeded in pulling it out by moving the slab. "He was dragged to the Pont Neuf and hanged by the feet from a gallows which he had had planted there to frighten those who spoke badly of him. There they cut off his nose, ears and shameful parts and threw away entrails in the water, and did to this corpse all the indignities that could be imagined. " Now Richelieu's coach, which was passing there on its way to see the nuncio, found itself stuck on the bridge in this howling crowd intoxicated with fury. If they identified him, it was death for sure. He ventured to speak to them, pretending to take their side. "These are people who would die in the service of the king," he called out, pointing to them. "Everyone shout Vive le Roi!" and shouting with them he pulled himself out of their clutches. But for the way back, he chose the Pont Notre-Dame [..]

Richelieu [..] will never forget that for a minister an end of this kind is part of the risks of the profession.

Simone Bertière- Louis XIII et Richelieu, "La Malentente".

[vivelareine]

When we reflect on Marie-Antoinette’s life, we are struck by a paradox. For in the end, what she is criticized for is striving for what all of her contemporaries dreamed of. She was very much in step with the times. Her desire for freedom, her appetite for life, her will to be herself, were all typical of a generation that was challenging the values of yesteryear. … It was a time when the individual, refusing to be a mere link in the generational chain, aspired to personal fulfillment.

… More generally, Marie Antoinette can be described as modern, provided we attach no moral judgement to the word. She was infinitely closer to us than her immediate predecessors, Marie Leszczynska or Marie-Josephe of Saxony for example. In the history of ideas, of tastes, of sensibility, she shared little with the classical centuries; she was on the other side, the one that has led to today’s world.

But this modernity, which would prove her downfall, contributed to the fascination she has never ceased to exercise over us. As Chantal Thomas pointed out, “Her charm reaches beyond the grave, amplified if not rendered sacred by the tragic story of her death.”

–Simone Bertière, The Indomitable Marie-Antoinette

[queenfredegund]

Les dix romans préférés

Règle : Donnez le titre de vos dix romans préférés ( pas nécessairement dans l’ordre.) Vous pouvez expliquer pourquoi vous les aimez, même si ce n’est pas obligatoire.

Tagguée par @ladyniniane, merci ;D

Les Lions d’Al-Rassan, de Guy Gavriel Kay : le dernier roman que j’ai lu, et j’ai vraiment adoré ! Certes, j’aurais des choses à critiquer, comme les personnages féminins qui sont ou sexualisés ou pas exploités à fond pour leur potentiel (une femme médecin qui ne fait même pas l’opération majeure du récit et une régente potentielle qui se contente de se promener d’un coin à l’autre de la carte sans chercher à saisir sa chance... mouais...), mais le rythme de l’oeuvre, la mélancolie qui s’en dégage, et surtout le très beau style d’écriture m’ont vraiment conquise !

Harry Potter, de Joanne K. Rowling : ma madeleine de Proust, évidemment ! Peu importe le nombre d’erreurs, le style d’écriture pas fou-fou ou les plot-holes, je ne peux pas ne pas l’évoquer, ni l’aimer moins. J’ai vécu avec les personnages toutes mes années collège (le tome 7 est sorti quand j’étais en seconde), donc ouais, autant dire que dès que je rouvre un tome, c’est “bonjour, nostalgie !”

Les Douze Royaumes, de Fuyumi Ono : gros coup de cœur sur cette fantasy “différente”, avec un bel aperçu de la culture asiatique (surtout chinoise), et des personnages profonds qui vivent de beaux développement psychologiques, tout en se posant des questions philosophiques. En plus on y côtoie des héroïnes qui ne sont pas sexualisées et sans qu’il soit jamais question de viols ou de passages malsains sur leur sex-appeal... Ouaip... c’est pas du luxe !

La Quête et Les Mondes d’Ewilan, de Pierre Bottero : la base de la fantasy jeunesse, je pense. Ça se suit avec addiction, et le style de Bottero, très lyrique mais sans perdre son côté nerveux, m’avait beaucoup plu quand j’étais plus jeune. La mort de l’auteur nous aura laissé une trilogie inachevée, Les Âmes Croisées, qui aurait dû nous permettre de rallier toutes ses œuvres entre elles... Dommage !

Le Clan des Otori, de Lian Hearn : l’un des premiers ouvrages de fantasy historique que j’ai pu lire, et l’un des styles littéraires que je préfère. Même si pour l’instant je n’ai pas fini le cycle (les derniers tomes sont encore dans ma pal :p), j’ai bien l’intention de m’y remettre maintenant que j’ai fini Les Lions d’Al-Rassan. Là encore, ce qui m’a séduite, c’est de pouvoir explorer un univers différent de la mouture médiévalisante qu’on nous ressert d’habitude, tout en profitant des codes du genre historique.

Da Vinci Code, de Dan Brown : je l’ai lu il y a longtemps, c’est vrai, mais alors quelle claque ! Je me souviens m’être vraiment prise au jeu dans cette traque, alors que d’habitude je suis pas fan des romans policiers. Un très bon souvenir de lecture.

Gallica, d’Henri Loevenbruck : une trilogie qui fait suite à une autre oeuvre de Loevenbruck, La Moïra, que j’avais moins aimée en fait. Là encore, de la fantasy historique, pas toujours très fine au final puisqu’elle se repère à des kilomètres à la ronde, mais avec une interprétation intéressante du bestiaire médiéval. Bon, je regrette peut-être un univers un peu trop sérieux pour être appréciable, mais ça se lit avec passion quand même !

Percy Jackson, de Rick Riordan : là encore, un classique de la fantasy jeunesse, avec un style percutant et des personnages frais et sympathiques. De la mythologie grecque associée à une quête épique ? Évidemment ça ne pouvait que fonctionner pour moi, surtout après un univers plus sombre comme celui d’Harry Potter.

Les Rois Maudits, de Maurice Druon : une saga qui n’a pas tant vieillie du côté de son style littéraire et qui continue de s’apprécier comme à sa première sortie. Évidemment, on se bat pas avec les sorties originales ou les personnages féminins transcendants, mais par rapport à d’autres romans historiques, il n’y a pas photo, vraiment...

Croc-Blanc et L’Appel de la Forêt, de Jack London : oui, ils sont parmi mes livres de chevet d’enfance ! Petite, j’étais fascinée par les loups (je le suis toujours, mais avant c’était carrément addictif !), et même si les histoires de London sont très sombres et même cruelles, je les ai lues et relues une bonne douzaine de fois, sans être jamais blasée ! J’aime même tellement Croc-Blanc que je l’ai même sous plusieurs formats (jeunesse, original, audio...) et en plusieurs éditions !

Ensuite, comme @ladyniniane, je me permets une petite digression avec mes œuvres scientifiques favorites, puisque j’ai fait un break sur les romans pendant ces 10 dernières années. Je les recommande à 100% pour celleux qui ne les connaissent pas encore ;)

The Imperial Harem. Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire, de Leslie Peirce : LA base dans l’histoire des femmes et du harem. Pour beaucoup d’historiens et d’historiennes, c’est encore la référence magistrale, qui a permis de bouleverser les clichés et de proposer une nouvelle approche dans le contexte des gender studies. On y parle démonstration de la souveraineté féminine, représentation physique du pouvoir et reproduction sociale dans le contexte dynastique.

La Déesse et le Grain, d’Alain Testart : un bouquin comme j’avais du mal à l’espérer, écrit avec beaucoup d’érudition et des références simples mais percutantes. On y parle mythologie préhistorique et néolithique, refus du cliché de “la grande déesse” et autres fétichismes sur les femmes toutes nues et le matriarcat, et interprétations des figures animales dans les sites archéologiques... Franchement, n’hésitez pas, il est franchement génial !

1177 avant J.-C.: le jour où la civilisation s'est effondrée, de Eric H. Cline : là encore, un ouvrage indispensable sur l’Âge du Bronze. Alors oui, il y a des théories un peu capillotractées et d’autres dont l’auteur reconnaît qu’elles ne font pas l’unanimité, mais c’est un regard très intéressant sur beaucoup de cultures ou de périodes souvent très connues (l’Égypte antique, les Minoens, les Hittites, etc...), mais qu’on se refuse encore trop souvent à mon goût à faire interagir ensemble, alors que justement, c’est le but pour comprendre leur environnement. Plus un point formidable sur les connaissances actuelles sur la Guerre de Troie.

Les Amazones: Quand les femmes étaient les égales des hommes (VIIIe siècle av J.C - Ier siècle apr.J.C.), d’Adrienne Mayor : un grand must pour toute personne qui rêve de se familiariser avec les gender studies. L’archéologie est encore un domaine qui souffre de sexisme et où on aime pas du tout bousculer ses petites conventions de “les hommes à la guerre, les bonniches aux fourneaux”. Or là, on y parle femmes guerrières, tombes féminines et corps tatoués, bref tout ce qui rend les vieux archéologues sceptiques mais demande plus d’exploitation raisonnée dans le domaine scientifique.

Servants of the Dynasty. Palace Women in World History, d’Anne Walthall : un ouvrage collectif très intéressant sur la place et les différents rôles des femmes dans les milieux curiaux et palatiaux. Des cours mayas à celle du Bénin, en passant par le Japon, la Chine, la Russie médiévale ou Byzance, des travaux novateurs de plusieurs historiennes majeures de la discipline : à consommer sans modération !

A Woman's Place is in the House: Royal Women of Judah and their Involvement in the House of David, d’Elna K. Solvang : une.grande.claque ! Rien à dire d’autre, en fait. Enfin si : l’ouvrage se décompose en deux parties, une première qui fait un panorama fascinant sur les femmes royales dans les cours du Proche-Orient ancien, avec notamment une théorie très novatrice sur les rôles dévolus à chacune, et une seconde qui met en pratique ces théories à travers les personnages du Livre de David. C’est génialissime et pas assez connu à mon goût !

The Dynamics of Ancient Empires. State Power from Assyria to Byzantium, de Ian Morris et Walter Scheidel : une autre grande démonstration scientifique, peut-être un poil corsée, je l’avoue. Mais il y a des théories très intéressantes à glaner sur la création et la formation des empires et des cultures, surtout au niveau des relations sociales (polygamie, monogamie).

Femmes de la Préhistoire, de Claudine Cohen : pour rebondir sur le féminisme et les travaux d’Adrienne Mayor, cette fois-ci sur la période préhistorique, où les femmes sont généralement encore moins appréciées et envisagées, la faute à des sources parcellaires et à un parti pris évident... L’historienne s’intéresse alors à ces clichés dans notre représentation de la période et pose des questions pertinentes sur le “et pourquoi pas une femme plutôt qu’un homme ?”

Les Reines de France, de Simone Bertière : moins engagée, mais avec une intéressante approche. Deux dynasties françaises (Valois et Bourbon) dont l’auteur décortique les femmes royales (les reines la plupart du temps, mais pas que en fait), en cassant au passage les clichés et les légendes noires qui leur collent à la peau, le tout avec une plume agréable, plus proche du roman que de l’écriture scientifique. Je pense que pour se faire la main sur certains personnages et envisager une plus grande réflexion sur eux, les deux cycles sont ce qu’il y a de mieux. À lire au plus vite !

Les dix millénaires oubliés qui ont fait l'Histoire : quand on inventa l'agriculture, la guerre et les chefs, de Jean-Paul Demoule : on termine sur un ouvrage “clé” pour l’étude du néolithique et de la préhistoire en elle-même, qui revient sur des questions aussi complexes que la naissance de l’agriculture ou l’apparition des premiers villages, mais avec pédagogie et une réflexion sur les théories les plus récentes qui est tout à fait abordable pour qui ne connait pas ou justement veut se mettre à niveau sur la discipline.

Voilà pour moi ;) Je tag @fierce-little-miana, @antonomase et @graindedune (si ce n’est pas déjà fait !), faites-vous plaisir !

[bunniesandbeheadings]

All night long Madame Royale heard her mother sobbing. while drums continued their sinister beat, calling the masses to arms. This incident [the murder of the Princesse de Lamballe] marked Marie-Antoinette deeply; she never got over it. But Louis XVI immediately grasped the double lesson. The prison walls had protected them; the tower’s narrow spiral staircase afforded greater protection than the Tuileries’ grand stairway. As long as the guards continued to do their job, they were relatively safe. They had actually done more than required in trying to save the queen from the hideous spectacle. Among the Commune members, revolutionaries from the start and staunch republicans, there were many who were sickened, and the royal family found with some of them, not salvation, which was out of the question, but at least a bit of human warmth.

Simone Bertière, The Indomitable Marie-Antoinette (Paris: Editions de Fallois, 2014)  

[histoireettralala]

Day of the Dupes

It all began on Sunday November 10, 1630 [...] Louis XIII [...] dedicated the beginning of the afternoon to wresting [from his brother] a public declaration of "friendship" for Richelieu. He then presided a restricted Council in Luxembourg, where it was decided to reject the peace of Regensburg and therefore to continue the war in Italy. To please the queen mother, Marshal de Marillac, who was there on the spot, was entrusted with the general command of the army. In vain! As soon as the Council was over, she took Richelieu aside and brutally informed him that she was withdrawing the management of her "house" from him, which involved the expulsion of the staff introduced by him - a palace revolution that would not go unnoticed! According to the English ambassadors, the scene took place in the presence of the king. Although it was a private contract that she was free to denounce as she pleased, he tried to reason with her. According to them, unable "to gain anything" from her, he dismissed Richelieu by ordering him to go the next morning to take from her his official leave and then join him in Versailles. Not a word had been said about his ministerial duties. But as soon as he had turned around, she re-entered the fray to demand, moreover, his dismissal. Louis XIII eluded and left. The private break between his mother and the cardinal annoyed him because it was going to cause a scandal at a time when France had to show a united front during negotiations on the affairs of Italy. He decided to get her to delay publication.

On Monday, November 11, he therefore went to her home, a little early, around half past ten in the morning. He found her at her vanity, more stubborn than ever. Far from yielding, she went further. If Richelieu attended the Council, she would leave it. She didn't want to see him anywhere anymore.

And this exclusion measure took effect the same day, on the occasion of his leave visit: he would not have come, the order was given to turn him away. Suddenly, in a dramatic turn of events, at just eleven o'clock, a door opened.

The cardinal emerged: "Your Majesties are talking about me, it appears." Amazed, she hesitated for a moment: "No ... Yes it is indeed of him that she spoke, as of the most ungrateful and the most malicious of men." How was this intrusion possible? Richelieu knew the castle inside out. Pushed back by the ushers, he borrowed on the ground floor one of these service stairs whose pillars and walls were riddled and emerged in the "little chapel", in other words the private oratory included in the apartments of the queen. The interior door which commanded access had no doubt escaped the instructions given by Marie, unless a compliant maid had reopened it.

Wondering about the route followed is good, but we sometimes forget to underline the extraordinary audacity that this intrusion shows. Forcibly entering the Queen's private apartment was indeed an extremely serious offense that only the King's previous invitation could excuse. It remained to be seen how he would endure the confrontation. The scene which followed had no witnesses - which did not prevent tongues from running and imaginations from embroidering. Diplomats and memorialists agree that it was very violent and that, under the torrent of insults vomited by Marie, Richelieu broke down. In tears he stooped, it is said, to beg her forgiveness on his knees. She sneered: this master actor knew how to cry on command.

According to the Florentine resident, he begged the dismayed king "to allow him to retire, since his person was odious to the queen mother." To which the latter replied "that he still wanted to keep him in his service", and advised him to "go to Pontoise for a few days while he settled things." All the unfortunate had to do was kiss the hem of his ex-protector's dress and get out. At the bottom of the main staircase, he waited, among the curious who had heard of the scandal. Louis XIII passed, his face closed, without a gesture, without a glance.

It was soon known that he would be leaving early in the afternoon for his Versailles hunting lodge. For the audience, there was no doubt that the cardinal's disgrace was complete. His niece, Madame de Combalet, the queen mother's lady-in-waiting, was already packing their bags. Marie de Médicis drew up her plans and proclaimed, radiant, that he was going to leave the court and would have as successor the Keeper of the Seals, Marillac.

Richelieu, devastated, had locked himself in the Petit-Luxembourg. At his side, one of his sure friends, the Cardinal de La Valette. What to do? To prevent an arrest, he considered taking refuge in the Place du Havre, of which he was governor - it was as good as putting the rope around his neck. It was better to obey the most recent instruction: a waiting time in Pontoise. But hadn't the king invited him to join him at Versailles the night before? No hesitation, said La Valette, it was necessary to go to Versailles. And right away, before the king was subjected to other influences! "Whoever leaves the game loses it."

Immediately said, immediately done. The speed of his reaction worked wonders. He found Louis XIII alone, who welcomed him with open arms. He was as humble as could be, blameless. He offered his resignation, which was refused. He refrained from making the mistake, which would have been a deal-breaker, of complaining about the queen. He insisted, as he should, on the duties of a son to his mother, on her foreseeable resistance, and the associated dangers. Louis XIII declared himself ready to face them.

Then the events sped up. He summoned the ministers and secretaries of state available - with the exception of Michel de Marillac, invited to go to his house in Glatigny. In the middle of the night, he held an improvised Council where, after recalling the intrigues carried out against the cardinal by the Keeper of the Seals, it was decided to dismiss him. His replacement was immediately provided for, and instructions aimed at his (Michel de Marillac) brother, Louis, immediately left for Italy. At dawn, Brienne came to collect the Seals from the hands of the unfortunate man, who expected it, but had not foreseen the scale of the disaster. He was given time to finish his morning mass, then he was handed over to an exempt, who embarked him for an unspecified destination. For his part, the Marshal in Italy received a letter in a few hours conferring on him the supreme command of the army, then another ordering his arrest.

In Paris, however, no one suspected the incredible upheavals that had occurred during the night. On this morning of November 12, Marie de Médicis was still sleeping, harbouring golden dreams. When she woke up she saw Brienne appear, who informed her of the king's decision, ordering her to submit to it. She shouted loudly, wanted to run to Versailles. He replied that she would not be received there. Informed of the fall of the Marillacs, she had to admit that she had lost the game.

The joy that reigned in the Luxembourg among her friends the day before turned into a concert of lamentations. Most of it took place over two days, November 10 and 11, nights included. But it was only on the following day 12 that the vanquished saw themselves deceived in their hopes. Their illusions barely caressed and already lost, they never saw it coming. Bautru, the cardinal's reknowned supplier in witty remarks, found one that made a fortune: it was "Dupes Day".

Contrary to what is sometimes said, Richelieu didn't change the king's mind: Marie, by her anger, her intransigence, her blindness, forced him to a rupture he would have preferred to avoid. She did not budge: "It will be Richelieu or me, an unfaithful servant or your mother." The response to such an ultimatum seemed self-evident. But he changed the terms of the alternative: it was between the State and his mother that he would decide.

Simone Bertière - Louis XIII et Richelieu, la Malentente.

[histoireettralala]

In 1624, Richelieu is nearing his forties. More than ever, he is a man in a hurry, but he doesn't show it. Years have passed, putting his resistance to the test. Of a just average size, but with a good figure, a face with marked edges and his black eyes, he still passes, despite his ascetic thinness, for a pretty handsome man and his presence is imposing. But he carries within himself a flaw against which he has always fought, an extreme nervousness which has earned him violent migraines, to which are added a few crises of a malaria caught in Luçon. In a somber mood, he rarely smiles. He is a repressed passionate, in whom alternate phases of elation and depressive episodes where he will shut himself up in Coussay. He sometimes throws his cardinal's cap on the ground in a fit of anger or sheds abundant tears under the blow of emotion *, and he is even capable, it is said, of using it at will. Taking too much on himself, he does not know how to rest. The tension that inhabits him radiates around, making others uncomfortable. Elusive, he throws people off balance. But he fails - does he even try- to conceal his overwhelming intellectual superiority. It paralyzes the interlocutor who knows he is outclassed in advance. What exactly does he think? We do not know. Between extreme sagacity and duplicity, the border is thin. His ambition stands out a mile, his desire for power too. He does not seduce, he fascinates, he disturbs. The only one not to lose his means in front of him will be Mazarin, who, because he is equally intelligent, will be able to make their interviews an exchange and not a confrontation. And thus a solid friendship will emerge. Alas, among his contemporaries, few are capable of it. The epithet they most often attach to him is formidable.

*AN: Let’s not forget that the education received at the time did not request that men contain their tears, unlike today. So we see them cry a lot, without false shame.

Simone Bertière, Louis XIII et Richelieu: la Malentente, Le Livre de Poche, P. 109-110.

Translator’s note: Richelieu entered the King’s Council on April 29, 1624. Louis XIII was then 22. They would work together till their respective deaths in December 1642 and May 1643.