#the nobles of Versailles! which includes King Louis | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dresshistorynerd · 11 months

Text

I had the idea of writing about some historical queer figures I find interesting and drawing them for this pride month as a little project of mine. I will see how many I'll have time to do, I have in mind at least four other historical people, but knowing myself, I'm not holding my breath for all of them. Julie d'Aubigny she been one of my favorite historical figures for years so I decided to start with her.

Historical Queer Figures - Julie d'Aubigny

Julie d'Aubigny, also known as Mademoiselle Maupin and La Maupin, was a French opera singer and fencer in the late 1600s. She was infamous for having sapphic relationships, being aggressive and dramatic, having androgynous presentation by occasionally dressing in men's clothing in public and being a fencer and duelist. Trans and genderqueer readings of her are very possible, but because none of the accounts of her (at least those I've read) suggests she ever used any other than feminine first names or terms or she/her pronouns about herself, I will use she/her pronouns when talking about her.

The French court absolutely loved to gossip and people were constantly making up libel about the people they didn't like, and Julie had a lot of enemies and was very controversial figure. During the 18th and 19th centuries she was written about a lot in these highly sensationalized Encyclopedias, where the rumors from her lifetime got increasingly wilder and sensational. She was accused for example of seducing noble women in court balls, burning down a convent and murder. There's not much primary sources left or available from her actual lifetime so distinguishing truth from fiction is not an easy task in her case. Kaz Rowe did great job in their youtube video about her to try to actually find out where the stories of her life comes from. They go through some great context too about the rumor industry in the French court at the time so I highly recommend checking it out.

CW: very brief mentions of child sexual abuse and self-harming

The Timeline of Most Concrete Events

Let's first go through the things that have at least a bit more backing than a rumor started 100 years after her death. Julie d'Aubigny was born between 1670 and 1673. Her father was Gaston d'Aubigny, the secretary of Louis of Lorraine, count d’Armagnac, who was Master of Horses to King Loius XIV, and her mother is unknown. She was probably brought to the Versailles court in 1682, where she got a full education including academic subjects, riding and fencing, usually only thought for boys. She was married off to a Sieur de Maupin (first name unknown) probably around 1687, when she would have been 14 to 17 years old. He apparently got a position from a southern province as a tax collector. The stories about her claim she remained in Paris, but I don't think there's evidence of this, though what we do know of her adult life does suggest she was estranged from her husband and lived apart from him. Nevertheless, she did end up in Marseilles, where she first appeared on stage in Marseilles Opéra between 1687 and 1690. She didn't have education in music, but her good looks and beautiful voice landed her the role.

Her first appearances in the Paris Opéra are listed to 1690, so that is probably when she had her debut there. She became a very talked about figure and she gained both friends and enemies in the opera and the court. She performed in the Paris Opéra for probably four years, after which she went to Brussels, Bavaria, where she performed with the Opéra du Quai au Foin at least during 1697 and early 1698, after which she returned to France to perform again with the Paris Opéra.

It was the period when her career peaked and she got a lot of leading female roles. Those roles in French opera were at the time soprano roles, but Julie's natural voice range was lower, contralto. (There's a whole thing where at the time she was described as mezzo-soprano, but the music historian consensus is that her range matches contralto in modern terms as opera was sang on lower cords across the board at the time. (I understand nothing about music theory so I just hope I managed to explain this correctly)) She excelled in secondary female roles of goddesses and warrior women. For the leading roles she had to sing on higher notes than was natural to her and the naive and dainty personalities of those roles clashed with her own personality. Some later retellings of her life claim she performed male roles for female singers (which was common practice, and these roles were often those of young boys), but all known records of her roles are female roles. In 1702 on the leading composers of the Paris Opéra, André Campra, wrote her a leading lady role in Tamcréde, which is often credited to have the first leading female role for contralto. But her perhaps most famous role was as Médée in Medus, which was considered to be a very difficult role. Apparently the original leading singer had fallen ill before the debut so Julie was quickly trained in her stead, but succeeded well and got a lot of praise for the role.

In 1703 Julie started an affair with Madame la Marquise de Florensac, who was said to have been the most beautiful woman in France. This is the affair of hers of which there's most evidence. De Florensac was married and had children, but she was also rumored to have many affairs. Julie lived quietly together with her for two years. They were described by a contemporary to have lived in perfect harmony, always spending time together and only appearing in public when necessarily. Julie deputed in her last role in 1705 and ended her career after De Floransac died of sudden fever. Nothing concrete is known about the rest of her life, not even how or when she died, but she is usually speculated to have died in 1707.

Parsing History from Fantasy

Chronologically the rumor that places earliest in her life was that she had "an affair" with count d’Armagnac (age 46 at the time), before she got married in the same year so as a 14 to 17 year old. There doesn't seem to be any actual evidence of this and even if that really happened, it wouldn't have been an affair, it would have been grooming and sexual violence. Related to it is the rumor that the count arranged her marriage and sent her husband away, but kept her in the court with him. Then she "got bored" of the count and ran away with an assistant sword-master, Séranne, to southern France. They got money by performing fencing matches in fairs and taverns while they were traveling till they got to Marseilles, where she first appeared in opera.

The stories of her in this period are generally written in a super nasty tone, and she (as supposed 14 yo) is written as the seductress and the adult men are written as the victims of her fiery temper and fitfulness. All these stories seem pretty unlikely though. The rumor about the count seems (unfortunately) most possible, but accounts from 18th and 19th century about these early events in her life don't seem to be based on any information from her lifetime. I find it most likely that the writers in 18th and 19th centuries were filling out the blanks we don't know from her life and painting her as this (in their eyes) degenerate seductress from an early age. An alternative possible explanation could have been that she indeed accompanied her husband to south, perhaps near Marseilles, where she then performed with the Marseilles Opéra. Many sources claim though that she performed with her maiden name there, which would be odd if she was living with her husband. I don't know where that claim comes originally, but it could be false of course. Although the generally proposed year of her marriage could also be false, which would explain why she at first performed with her maiden name, and later in Paris and always after that with her husband's name. That would not explain how she ended up going to Marseilles though.

The next and perhaps the most infamous and coolest story of her sets somewhere shortly before 1690. In that story she fell in love with a girl in Marseilles and the girls parents sent her to a convent to avoid a scandal. Julie went to the convent with the premise of wanting to become a novice. They tried to frame the girl's death by putting a dead nun's body into the girls bed and setting it on fire and then went on the run for couple of months. While on the run Julie was sentenced to death in absentia, but after returning to Paris and rekindling her relationship with count d'Armagnac, he got the king to pardon her. As amazing as this story is, it's very likely not true. It seems quite unlikely that the 15 to 19 year old Julie would have done that, but even more unlikely that she'd just get all her charges dropped and these crimes wouldn't have hindered at all her career, which hadn't even properly begun yet. The first surviving description of this incident comes from a letter of her contemporary court lady, Madame Dunoyer, who was basically an early gossip columnist and despised her. Her story doesn't mention Julie at all, but talks about a nun, who tried to frame her own death in a similar manner to escape with her male lover (which still sounds very unlikely story). The first surviving description that attaches that story to Julie, comes year after her death from the very suspect writings of a known liar, Cardinal Debois, who did personally know and hate Julie. He claimed that Dumenil, who was an actor in Paris Opéra the same time as Julie, related him the story, while also acknowledging he probably did it because he too hated her. So very likely not a true story, but possibly something that was rumored during her lifetime already.

In the stories of her, after escaping from the convent and before going to Paris, she traveled again in male attire and met Louis Joseph d'Albert de Luynes von Grimberghen, commonly known as count d'Albert. He was an interesting character in his own right, roughly her age, and like her, his real story is a little hard to parse from the legend (though in his case, he was a nobleman so there's also a lot of actual records of his life). In the story though, he thought she was a man, they had some disagreement, a fight broke out, she won, injured him and nursed him back to health. And then they had a brief affair before d'Albert went to war again. They were lifelong friends, so this is not entirely made up. It's entirely possible they had a brief affair (and according to many stories an on and off type of affair that was re-kindled at many points in their lives) and there was rumors about it even in her lifetime, but the story of this first meeting seems to lack validity.

Next in her stories she met Gabriel-Vincent Thévenard, who was another famous singer and her contemporary, either right before or right after she arrived in Paris. They became lovers and after Thévenard auditioned and got accepted into the Paris Opéra, he helped to get Julie accepted too. It is true that as far as we know, they both debuted in 1690. They were also said to have been life long friends and again it's possible they were lovers at some point, but the details of their meeting are difficult to know.

There are many stories about her antics of both of her times in the Paris Opéra. In those stories she fought duels, assaulted Dumenil with a cane, robbed Dumenil, had fights with men after they insulted her or another women or harassed other women, tried to kill herself after her love was not reciprocated, threatened to shoot a duchess in the head, threatened to slit Cardinal Debois' throat, bit Thévenard in the ear on stage and had affairs with men and women. According to Cardinal Debois the feud between Dumenil and Julie started because Dumenil was interested in her but she rejected him. The Cardinal was a liar but it does sound pretty believable. So if it's true and he spread in retaliation a lie that she burned down a convent, her beating him up or beating him up, stealing his valuables and returning them to him by humiliating him in front of other actors, would align well with everything else told about her personality. Maybe her retaliation wasn't exactly as in the stories, but if the other things about Dumenil were true, I'm sure she retaliated in some way. Same applies to her threatening the Cardinal's life. He wrote about it, but he was a liar, but, but because he was a liar who lied about her, it sounds like something she might do. Madame Dunoyer wrote about her threatening the Duchess of Luxembourg apparently because of jealousy over count d'Albert. The duchess was d'Albert's mistress at one point and apparently he even fought a duel over her in 1700. So there is some validity to this rumor, though the circumstances were perfect to fabricate that kind of rumor. I haven't found as much backing to other rumors, but many of them sound possible or at least maybe rooted in some reality and exaggerated.

The rumored explanation for why she left the Paris Opéra around 1694 was that she went into a court ball in men's clothing, kissed a woman on the dance floor and got challenge to a duel by three noblemen. They went outside and she won, but because dueling was illegal, she had to flee to Bavaria, and later when she returned, she was supposedly pardoned by the king again. In the more sensational versions of the story she killed the noblemen. This whole story is very unlikely. Even count d'Albert was imprisoned for engaging in an illegal duel (the one in 1700). He got eventually pardoned, but he was a nobleman and basically a war hero. The first surviving accounts of this story come much after her dead and it sounds more like a very exaggerated version of the other stories of her. There's many more plausible reason why she would have left to Bavaria. If her contemporaries descriptions of her behavior were even half true, those could have been scandal enough. Or if the rumors of her burning down a convent were circling that time already, that alone could have been damaging enough to her career that she thought it best to leave for a while.

In Bavaria, she's rumored to have another scandal. She supposedly became lover of the Max Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria, but she was too dramatic and after she stabbed herself with a real knife during a performance, the Elector decided she was too much, demanded her to leave Bavaria and gave her money for it. She supposedly threw the money to the feet of the messenger and left. The first surviving account of this story comes again from Madame Dunoyer, the details of which have changed, but were always quite exaggerated and unbelievable. Still the core events might be true, it's possible she was the Elector's lover for a while and it's also possible she stabbed herself on stage for real, being very dramatic as she was.

Was she queer?

There are enough accounts of her attraction and relationships with women from people who actually knew her, that I do find it very likely that she was sapphic. Cardinal Debois even implied she was exclusive interested in women or at least heavily preferred them, though other accounts by the people who knew her did talk about her attraction to men too. Her dressing in men's clothing is also mentioned enough times by her contemporaries that I do believe it. Because gender was so heavily tied to clothing and sexuality and fashion was less about what you wanted to wear and more about what you wanted others to think about you, I think she probably had some gender feelings. Even her aggressive and assertive behavior was very much seen as crossing gender boundaries. There's no more evidence of her feelings on gender than her androgynous presentation, so it's mostly speculation.

In conclusion, she was definitely a flavor of queer.

Julie circa 1700 in opera costume.

The most notable source I used:

Julie D'Aubigny: the 17th Century Sapphic Swordfighting Opera Singer, video by Kaz Rowe - I mentioned this before but it bears repeating

Research page by Jim Burrows - This was great since there's gathered multiple sources on le Maupin, historical and more recent, some of which are hard to access fully otherwise

Julie d'Aubigny: La Maupin and Early French Opera, LAPL blog post - It repeats most of the rumors of questionable origin about her as truth, but the sections about her career, which have more backing than just rumors, are really helpful

Mademoiselle De Maupin; Biographical sketches & anecdotes, The Dublin University Magazine - One of those questionable biographies of her from 1854, really only good as a source of what the rumors were after her death

Chevalier, Louis-Joseph, prince de Grimberghen, essay by Neil Jeffares - Biography of count d'Albert, which includes a lot of unsourced rumors about both le Maupin and d'Albert, but recounts his life events in great detail, and references to each claim show which parts are sourced well

#queer history #history #pride month #art #queer art #lgbtq history #sapphic art #digital art #portrait #historical art #historical queer figure #julie d'aubigny #julie de maupin

249 notes · View notes

lemonhemlock · 1 year

Note

So I know you love History, and I have a question. Did nobles have to pay rent to stay in a king’s castle. I know some Royal courts had thousands of people, so I can’t think of how the King would feed all of them.

Reina, you're killing me with this question. 😭 I'm afraid that nothing in my field of study has included something like the minutiae aspects of medieval social life, so this requires some serious rolling up the sleeves and getting some proper research done.

So, when it comes to the Middle Ages, I'm not the best informed dilettante out there. I have to say, though, I imagine that nobles would generally live at their own estates most of the time, since they were directly interested and invested in its administration, their lands being their only source of income. Exceptions would be people who'd serve the King in some kind of official capacity - like a proper job (eg. chancellor, councilors, financial officers etc), for which they would have been compensated with some form of salary.

As far as visitors and hangers-on, I'm not really sure.

I did manage to find this related thread over at r/Ask Historians. As always, when pondering a question, it's important to delineate the time interval and the region, because feudalism was not exactly a uniform system. V interesting how some kings would keep an itinerary court of sorts and basically travel from place to place.

This thread (+this) explains a little how Louis XIV revolutionized the court system, essentially forcing his nobles to live with him at Versailles (at least for part of the year) and transforming them into courtiers, making them fight with each other for "better" positions. Of course, we're not talking about the Middle Ages anymore here, but it's useful to conceptualize this as a tool for the king to control and curtail the power of his nobles, increase his own political power instead and hurry along the process of bureaucratic centralization.

I imagine most of the people living at court would be servants though. Housing and food would be provided to them, of course, as well as payment. Households would also vary in size, depending on how much money there was available for wages.

#within IR we fast track everything from 1648 until we get to the 20th century i'm afraid #then we get down to more elaborate case studies #medieval historians feel free to drop ur 2 cents #like if anyone has any proper bibliography for this i'd be v interested #social life during the middle ages #ask #lareina219

10 notes · View notes

thatpoppinat · 3 years

Text

👸🏻More Than A Nickname👸🏻

In this story, the miraculous lore is the same and so is the time period

but, instead of the French monarchy being beheaded in the French Revolution, the government is a constitutional/democratic monarchy

-Lives are Changed-

Marinette is the only daughter of Their Royal Highnesses Melody Cheng (commoner, Asian) of China and Maxim Louis Bourbon (royalty, European) of France, making her Princess Marinette Coccinelle Bourbon Cheng of France, making her the heir to the throne

and she doesn't even know it at first

an assassination attempt on an unborn baby Mari ended up killing her mother, she had been taken out via c- section and was labelled as 'dead' to the public

Marinette was taken in by one of Melody's distant relatives Sabine to live in Paris, because the King feared the for only child of him and his no deceased wife's safety

A fake certificate was made in order to keep her safe and for her to have a couple of years with a normal life

(So, yes. This is basically a "Princess Diaries" kind of story. I love those kinds of stories. Deal with it.)

This changes when she becomes Ladybug, however

To summarize the whole affair, Maxim discovers that Marinette is Ladybug and escorts her (read: forces her) back to the Versailles Palace in order to keep her safe, but due to Marinette's passion for her job she is very against this

She is also reeling from the fact that she had been lied to for practically her entire life up to this point

Oh, and the fact that her birthmother had been murdered and there were people out there who wanted her dead.

No biggie.

-Schools are Switched-

Earlier, Marinette had been switched to online schooling due to bullying (Lila and her lackeys).

She was sent by Maxim to the Beauvoir Boarding School for Wealthy and Artistic Young Women; it's a part of the Versailles palace, near the public gardens (so it's technically not a boarding school for her, seeing as though she doesn't technically leave her "house")

She is given her own (gorgeous) room and has to get used to the luxury that surrounds her, all the while trying to hide her secrets from her new school friends: Anastasia, Elodie, Brielle, Rosamie, and Catalina

There is this one girl named Emma that absolutely hates her for -insert reason- and is rude to her (she'll regret that later on)

Also, she ruins the name Emma for Marinette; don't want to name your child after someone who torments you, after all

Thought I guess children in general are tormentors, idk, pick your poison

Her identity is hidden from the public, but after another attempt on her life, leaks of her existence spread, and the news was suddenly blasting this one question

"Is our Princess alive?"

The king eventually announces that, yes, his daughter did survive that attack, and tells the world her middle name, Coccinelle.

Everyone wants to know who the Princess is and it's all over the news, nobles insist on meeting her, etc.

Crack theorists connect 'Coccinelle' to 'Ladybug' and there are now conspiracy theories on how the missing princess was Paris' heroine Ladybug; however, many people thought that was stupid (how little did the know lol)

and, of course, Lila claims to have met Coccinelle before (technically, yes) and that she was friends with her (absolutely not)

Marinette was given a pet poodle as an apology from her father for drastically changing her life, and because ~French~

-Insight is Made-

After the tension kinda fades away, she starts to hang out with her father in his private gardens so she can learn more about him and her mom, "I've always had a passion for gardening, Sabine told me it was one of your hobbies." "Your mother was incredibly sassy, so defiant."

Marinette noticed that his usual stone cold face seemed to soften when he talked about her, and she began to admire her birthmother

Tom and Sabine will always be held dear in her heart, however. They raised her and loved her after all.

She learns her father had met her mother when they were in their teenage years.

Maxim had disguised himself as a 'commoner' and snuck out of the palace. He had snuck onto a tourist ferry going through the Seine River.

On the ferry, he had seen someone painting a portrait of his future wife. He thought she was pretty and started talking to her

Hence how Marinette got her name:

French for "Rider of the seas" or 'little marine'" :P

(Yes, a river is not a sea, but bear with me)

She eventually convinces Maxim that being Ladybug was her duty and that she could defend Paris and herself with her partner

However, in her spare time when she's not doing schoolwork and defending Paris, she trains to be a Guardian from the Miraculous Temples and have private tutoring on economics, the royal family tree, etc..

Also, I want there to be some white supremacists who didn't like the fact that the past Queen of France was a non- royal Chinese woman; to be raging that a future ruler is going to be biracial. I believe that this has happened to some European royalty that were minorities, and I want Marinette to deal with that and to grow from that

Race doesn't equal nationality; and Marinette knows France, she was raised in France, I feel like this needs to be included

So, basically, I want her to be swamped with physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion - but not forever though, don't worry-

- Announcements are Released-

Her new friends find out she's Ladybug. Marinette de-transforms right in front of them because she was exhausted and wasn't paying attention.

They then proceeded to topple her.

The world learns the Princess is Marinette during an announcement at a Ball her father threw for her; her old class explodes into chaos

Her new friends topple her, again. Her old classmates want to be friends with her again. And her bullies back off. Big time.

Marinette is then approached by Gabriel Agreste to start a clothing line with him inspired by royalty, and while she's tempted to, she doesn't want to associate herself with Adrien

She tells him about how when she was being bullied by one of his models, Lila, Adrien knew she was lying and did nothing when Marinette was isolated from the class. Lila was immediately fired after the talk. Gabriel then has a talk with his son about how his poor behavior had taken away an amazing opportunity from his company, and prays the public never hears about this

Later on, however, they eventually do

Much later on it is leaked that Princess Marinette is Ladybug after footage from an akuma attack

Alya nearly faints. Again.

The 'Crack Theorists' laugh in Smart™, and the world explodes once again

Marinette is definitely popular now.

Adrien freaks out: "OMG, I was flirting with the Princess!" "I ignored my partner when she needed my help!" "She's too good for me!" etc. He can't face her during akuma attacks anymore, and Marinette assumes that because of her status, he's intimidated by her. Chat Noir eventually reveals that he's Adrien and it takes her a while to forgive him, but in time, she does.

In time.

After attacks, reporters start to swarm her for answers and interviews. To get the reporters off her she creates an Instagram and a YouTube channel. Why? Cause I said so.

She's called Princess Coccinelle and gets millions of followers in like, hours after putting herself on the websites. She makes videos of her having fun with her friends, akuma safety tips, answers questions asked about her life, so on and so forth.

'Coccinelle' eventually talks about how she doesn't use Alya's blog because she doesn't fact check their recourses

She doesn't mention how she originally started giving Alya interviews because she used to be her friend

"It took me while to realize that I didn't deserve the mean texts I had gotten from my old classmates, or the ruined sketchbooks; which, as an artist, broke my heart. Anyone can be bullied, be it a princess, or a superhero. The important thing is to know that you are worth it and shouldn't be treated that way regardless of your status or your looks. If the people who are rude to you come to apologize later on, you have the right to be upset and not forgive them initially."

Gabriel questions if targeting Ladybug, the Princess and symbol of the whole freaking country was a good idea

All the while, Marinette trains to be a good guardian, the future 'ruler' of France, and a better hero.

She hardly ever gets homework, but the girls at Beauvoir think it's fair

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I really wish that someone who is a better writer than me and has a lot of free time would write this into a story and not a summary. I might write it later, later on but I have a lot going on rn and I don't feel like my current writing skills could do the story I have envisioned in my head justice. I guess you never know till you try it right?

I’m still on the fence of whether or not it was a good idea to add in Marinette’s secret identity as Ladybug being exposed, but idk.

Anyways, I'd like to hear what you'd guys think about this AU? Should I change something? Do you have ideas and headcanons you'd like to add? A new villain? I'd like to read your comments and suggestions! (ヾ*≧∇≦)ﾉ

Have a nice day, ThatPoppinAT

#ml au #princess marinette #miraculous royalty #minor salt

28 notes · View notes

margridarnauds · 4 years

Note

I have an Irish ask! How did the regional kings hierarchy work - was there a high king irl? How did you rule, and what over, and how did you get to be high king, if so? (From - a descendant of the Kings of Desmond, but very confused about what's shit, and what's legit, in Irish History?

Kingship in an Irish context is an endlessly complicated topic, and it seems like for every question we get, someone’s written or plans to write a dissertation on it. You accidentally tripped over a landmine when asking me this one. Which is DEFINITELY not your fault, I don’t resent you for it, it just means you are getting a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGG answer.

But. Anyway. Kingship. I will preface anything I say with the acknowledgment that I am a mythological literature person, not necessarily a law/contracts/history person. Also that, tragically, there are a LOT of law tracts that remain untranslated. (And a lot of things. In general.)

So, this is…complicated, since a LOT of the work in the legal tradition revolves around the notion of kingship (seriously, my closest friend in the department is a legal scholar and we have had some long bitchfests about how much attention is paid to kingship VS the common people, simply because…..guess who was paying for these manuscripts to be made? Yep, it ain’t Farmer Cormac. The single most important thing you can ever remember about these texts is that they were made by and for an elite audience); you have a lot of kings in a fairly condensed space, and it gets to the point of whether we should even really properly translate rí as “king” or whether a more generic term like “leader” is actually more accurate, though it IS cognate with Latin “Rex” and Gaulish “Rix.” (Aka “Vercingetorix”, “Cunorix”, “Asterix”…all the most important “Rix”s of the ancient world.) So. Kings. Definitely kings. But not really in any way we would generally consider “kings” to be. Fergus Kelly estimated that there could be as many as 150 KINGS throughout Ireland between the 5th-12th centuries (17), which….on a relatively small island that holds only about 5 million people in the present….**150**.

Traditionally, the idea of a singular high king of Ireland was….okay, so you have a LOT of guys who claim to be “King of Ireland,” but there’s a question of how real that power actually was, how much power they ACTUALLY wielded, and how stable they actually were. And, on one hand “King of Tara” is generally taken to be synonymous with “king of Ireland”, (hence the Uí Néill’s LONG claim to power), but there are a lot of issues with that one, and it’s something that’s a matter of debate, not the least because it seems like the Uí Néill…..might have influenced the literature ever so slightly as a way of bolstering their own claims (Jaski, Early Irish Kingship and Succession, 215). Basically, no evidence that the kings of Munster paid tribute to the kings of Tara before the 9th century, making the claim that the King of Tara = King of ALL Ireland doubtful.

And….well, I’ll let Bart Jaski explain the title of ardrí (high king), since he’s the man with the big book on it: “To keep up with [the political developments of Brían Boru’s victory at the Battle of Clontarf], the annalists of the tenth century introduce the title ‘high-king’ (ardri) as a title of recognition or flattery to denote a powerful king who achieved a remarkable domination over others. In later historiography, the old kingship of Tara came to be regarded as the ‘high-kingship’ of Ireland, which is both an anachronism and an inaccurate estimation of what the kingship of Tara meant, both in pre-historic times as in the documentary period. The title of rex Hiberniae given to the kings of Tara Domnall of Cenél Conaill and his grandson Loingsech does not lend support to the existence of a ‘high kingship’. as they were apparently subjectively awarded by partisan annalists and others.”

Fergus Kelly was more to the point, “The king of Ireland (rí Érenn), who figures so prominently in the sagas, is rarely mentioned in the law-texts. Though the idea of a kingship of the whole isalnd had already gained currency by the 7th century, no Irish king ever managed to make it a reality, and most law-texts do not even provide for such a possibility” (18).

Charles-Edwards disputed this conclusion in Early Christian Ireland (okay, technically, he disputed Binchy’s conclusions, but this line of thinking), discussing some further references to a single king of Ireland binding the other kings of Ireland to him, as Conchobar was said to have done with the men of Ulster, as well as the legal term tríath, with a line from an 8th century law text being “He is a burdensome tríath who penetrates Ireland of peoples from sea to sea” (519). Liam Bhreatnach suggested in his article ‘Ardrí as an old compound,” as the name suggests, that the term itself, while little used, is old. I can’t get ahold of it at present, but I’m going to presume he did make a solid case, given that Carey, Jaski, and Charles-Edwards all cite him, and they are all careful, respectable scholars. What John Carey would point out in “From David to Labraid” is that actually, several of those early references were in fact to the Christian as opposed to an earthly deity. AKA “The ULTIMATE high king, the highest of kings” (pg. 21-23). Something suggested by Carey in that same article is that the Church MIGHT have promoted the idea of high kingship as a way of appealing to kings who would be interested in it in exchange for their support of Christianity; a quid pro quo.

Basically, the question of the extent of the high king’s power, both in a Christian and pre-Christian context, is HIGHLY controversial and something I reckon will never fully be satisfactorily resolved, not the least because it also has the misfortune of featuring two favorite, perennial topics of many Celticists: Etymological arguments and kingship. What I think we CAN gather from the debate is that it was very far from a SOLID title, more a matter of individual monarchs as opposed to stable dynasties. Medieval Ireland did not have a Versailles and a Louis XIV, there was not a singular sun king who decided their fates.

Now, in general, kingship was not necessarily held with the same iron grip that you would see with, say, the Plantagenets in England. Primogeniture was not necessarily a thing here. You did have to be a nobleman to be king (Sorry, Farmer Cormac, you’re out, get back to your field, peasant), and you had to be descended from a king in either the first or the second degree to be king, but you did NOT have to be the firstborn son. If you have seven kids and the youngest is the only one who is qualified to lead….yep, Junior takes the lot. So, that’s the first thing. There’s a section of Mac Firbis’ Great Book of Genealogies (which is a LATE text, but includes basically a scrapbook of older material) that references that exact scenario. Youngest can take it, eldest can take it, eldest PROBABLY has a higher shot of it because…older, more time to be groomed for the kingship, more time to gather people loyal to him, etc. But. Like. All of the kids have a shot, and depending on where they’re fostered off to, their foster families will very likely support them if they want to make a bid for the kingship. (Irish dynastic politics were VERY turbulent.)

A king is elected to the tribe through the popular acclamation of their major clients/family members; their power, while it is something that is expected to some extent, is not a GIVEN to the same extent. (Jaski 212). Which. Is where the role of tánaiste comes in, which is a late development, but it irons things out so it’s like “Okay, when the old fuck dies, this dude is king.” In a literary context, this is also why Bres’ kingship is kind of doomed from the beginning. Because it’s the WOMEN of the Tuatha dé who support his kingship, not the men.

And, of course, even if Junior does take the throne, that does NOT mean that his brother’s kids are out of the running when Junior dies (or, more to the point, they might try to speed things along and arrange for a “hunting accident” to happen.) Because of the three generation requirement to maintain noble status, there was quite a bit of infighting (Jaski 197), as different offshoots of a given high king will want the throne in order to maintain their noble rank. Knives Out: The Medieval Ireland edition.

One story that deals with this is Echtra mac nEchdach Mugmedóin (Adventures of the Sons of Eochaid Mugmedóin), which discusses how the future Niall of the Nine Hostages, born the son of a Saxon slave and the king of Ireland, hated by his stepmother, and the youngest of the lot of the sons ends up taking the kingship anyway. (Answer: He’s down to sleep with an old hag. Who is also the sovereignty of Ireland. And is like “Okay, that was some good D, here’s how you get the kingship now.”) Now, this is primarily a literary as opposed to a historical story, but…..well….that’s where a lot of our stuff for this. Does come from. For better or worse. And I’m not just saying that because I’m currently procrastinating on working on an edition of that very text.

So, on the question of “How to rule.” The main relationship was between an overking-client king. So, let’s say that I am an underking in….IDK. Munster. What can I say? I like Munster. I’m not even a pronvincial king, but I’ve got my tuath, I’m chilling out, I’ve got my cattle, I’ve got some Nemed-class people with me, I’ve got a bit of land, and a couple of those people we don’t really talk about because they’re not important (Aka “Commoners, slaves, etc.” The people who do the work that the more privileged classes CANNOT do, like chop wood.)

Now, let’s say that you’re a provincial king, King of Munster. Your father’s just died, you’ve become king, or, alternatively, you’ve beaten the shit out of the other candidates, and you roll up to my people. Now, I could probably fight, but like. That’s a way to. Die. And maybe I do want the protection that comes from a Lord-Client relationship, since, hey, that DOES mean that you’re responsible for me. And if the King of Connacht rolls up and is like “Hey, I want to attack you and steal your cattle” you can roll up and be like “Hey, want to die?” Also, if one of your OTHER subjects kills a man in my tuath, you are expected to mediate, with me taking a hostage from your court until everything’s resolved, and you and I both getting a part of the resulting settlement (Kelly 23). And, of course, I’ll support you as well. It’s a mutual client relationship, just….an inherently uneven one. Most of the powerful subject kings, who were free but still subject to an overking were related to that king by a shared kinship, but there was a double edged sword: I support you, and then your brother Eochaid comes to the throne, I’m up Shit River with no paddle (Jaski 206). If I’m particularly useful/powerful to you, you might even foster one of your kids with me, so I can support him politically later down the line. (And also strengthen the relationship between our two peoples; that kid is going to be more mine than yours by the time that his fosterage is over, he will call you athair and me datai; one is a more formal term meaning “father,” [cognate with Latin pater and English father] one is more like “dad” and is cognate with the Welsh dat. Which seems to be related to….yep, the English diminutive dad.) Peter Parkes rather magnificently talks about this system as: “Clientage dressed in a false plumage of kinship: Cuckold consanguinity.” (”When Milk Was Thicker Than Water?”, Comparative Studies in Society and History 6.3, pg. 606)

So, what would happen there? Well, the system of overking-client king was held together much in the same way as the relationship between individuals would be, ie through hostages. The giving of hostages is something that was EMBEDDED in the legal system. So, you and I would proceed to haggle over who I have to hand over. Now, I don’t want you to take someone too important, you will want to take the most important person you can. I’ll try to get you to take my third cousin twice removed who I might see once every few years, Conall, you’ll try to get one of my kids. And, let’s be real, since you have the most power in this situation, you’ll probably fucking win. “He who has the sword makes the rules”- NOT an official medieval Irish legal statement, but it might as well be. Now, it should be emphasized that hostages were HIGHLY respected and treated well, there was no particular stigma against someone who was a hostage at some point, and you do have accounts of hostages eating at the king’s table, in a position that denotes a degree of intimacy and companionship. And a couple who are brutally executed or maimed when their kings broke the terms of the agreement, but, hey, only a 2% murder rate or so; very good for the times. It could be that the king’s son had a role when it came to making sure the hostages were cared for. But there’s not been all that much work done on it and a lot of this is being remembered second hand from a PhD student in our department who did a STELLAR lecture on the topic; if and when he decides to formally publish it, I’ll probably make a big deal over it. Because….this shit is IMPORTANT.

This is also why it’s Niall of the Nine Hostages. Because that’s how many peoples he extracted hostages from, that is a sign of his power as a king. You could NOT be king of Ireland without hostages. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Like, how are you going to be sure that your supporters are going to stick with you? And even if they do, where’s the signs of your authority? Why do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

So, a king of Ireland’s reign would be held together by a similar system, whether it’s provincial or the famous ardri. A high king would take hostages from their client kings as a way of showing off their power and authority, and they would probably show them off when making a circuit of their territory. Your ancestor would definitely have had a group of hostages taken from the athech-thúatha, or client peoples. The Triads put it slightly more succinctly: “[220] Three things that constitute a king: a contract with other kings, the feast of Tara, abundance during his reign.”

Now, again, this is an idealized literary context, but we’ve discussed the first one, the contractural nature. The feis Temro, or the Feast of Tara, was something that a High King of Ireland HAD to do as a way of securing his reign, and in the early days at least it seemed to involve some sort of marriage/sexual ritual with a representative of the goddess of sovereignty, a living embodiment of the land, and it would involve imbibing some sort of drink offered to him by her as well. (This is why Eochaid Airem HAS to marry Étain, because he needs a queen to have his feis Temro and become a king. This is also why Niall of the Nine Hostages secured his reign via sleeping with aforementioned hag.)

And there were a number of different taboos and responsibilities tied to said kingship. For example, in The Tidings of Conchobar Mac Nessa, it is said that “Now Conchobar himself used to give them the (the feast of) Samaim because of the assembly of the great host. It was needful to provide for the great multitude, because everyone of the Ulstermen who would not come to Emain in Samain lost his senses, and on the morrow his barrow and his grave and his tombstone were placed.” The Adventures of Nera also features Medb and Aillil throwing a feast on the day of Samain for the entirety of the province. Baile in Scáil features Conn rising every day so that he can go onto the ramparts of Tara with his druids and poets to defend it from the possibility of otherworldly attack. Another obligation was “the Prince’s truth,” the idea that the king, when giving out judgements, should be able to INTUIT the true answer. Giving a false judgement = ruin for the land, everything goes to shit, the harvests fails, cattle die, aliens invade (okay….maybe not, but like. it would be cool if they did), the king of Leinster steals your wife, etc. until the bad king is replaced. (It has been SUGGESTED that that might be the reason for some of the bog bodies. Possibly.) He also HAD to go out with a retinue when he was out hunting, a king who didn’t lost his honor price, same as if he’d used an instrument of MANUAL LABOR (the horror, the shock) (Kelly 19). For what it’s worth, I do know of at least one case in….I believe the 16th century where a woman claimed that the king was the father of her child, there was no one who could dispute it since he was alone, he took a shine to the child anyway, and BOOM heir. Which further shows one of the social dangers of a king on his own.

More specific ones to each province are laid out in the Book of Rights, which Myles Dillon did an edition of in “Taboos of the Kings of Ireland”. An example (chosen at random) includes, “The five prohibitions of the king of Munster: to hold a court before celebrating the feast of Loch Lern from one Monday to the next; to spend a wet autumn night before winter in Letrecha, to camp for nine days on the Suir, to hold a meeting at the boundary near Gabruan ; to hear the groans of the women of Mag Feimin in their oppression. And his five prescriptions : to despoil Cruachain at the call of the cuckoo; to burn the Laigin to the north of Gabair; to chant the Passion in Lent at Cashel; to travel over Sliab Cua with a company of fifty after pacifying the south of Ireland; to go with a dark grey army on Tuesday across Mag nAlbe.”

Either way, in Ye Olde Days, there was definitely an element of protecting the people of the region from the possibility of supernatural attack. That would obviously die down a little with the coming of Christianity, I don’t know whether a king in the 15th century, for example, would be expected to keep to it that rigorously, I lean towards “no” personally since this is generally talked about as an outdated custom, but it remained a popular trope in medieval literature. Dillon himself points out that, given that many of the taboos mentioned in here were only recorded in the 14th century, they were likely considered to be an odd, antiquarian quirk. That being said…..it’s ALL tied into the kingship, the idea of the king being tied to a certain series of obligations, the mutual relationship between king and people.

Now, if a king failed in his duties and taboos, he could be ousted. Like “you fucked up, buster, get packing.” Some examples of kings who lost their sovereignty include Bres mac Elatha (my BOY, my SON, my ANGEL, my…..little piece of shit), who was satirized by a bard (this is why people REALLY tend to underline the power of bards, because like. This was an ACKNOWLEDGED power of theirs. They were held in a heady mix of respect and fear for this one), Fergus mac Roiche (didn’t lose it because of incompetence per se, but did hand it over to Conchobar, and the men of Ulster, inexplicably, liked Conchobar more, which….their mistake but.), and Congal Cáech (whose bid for king of Tara was, according to legend at least, ruined by an unfortunate bee sting. In his eye. Whether he was actually king of Tara is something that seems to be slightly disputed.) People often will ask me, when I mention how much I love Bres, why I love him so much, and I feel like the answer to that….there are a hundred answers, depending on my mood, and this is NOT a Bres post, but the one most relevant to the overall topic at hand is that he really experienced the full kingship experience: The rise, the fall, the absolute tumultuous political reality of a 9th century king, albeit a fictionalized one.

Bibliography:

Carey, John, ‘From David to Labraid: Sacral Kingship and the Emergence of Monotheism in Israel and Ireland’, Approaches to Religion and Mythology in Celtic Studies

Charles-Edwards, T.M., Early Christian Ireland, Cambridge University Press

Dillon, Myles, “Taboos of the Kings of Ireland,” Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy: Archaeology, Culture, History,Literature, Vol. 54

Jaski, Early Irish Kingship and Succession, Four Courts Press

Kelly, Fergus, A Guide To Early Irish Law, Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies

Mac Cana, Proinsias, Celtic Mythology, Littlehampton Book Services

Parkes, Peter, ”When Milk Was Thicker Than Water?”, Comparative Studies in Society and History 6.3

#celtic studies #irish mythology #celtic mythology #Anonymous

39 notes · View notes

madame-coquette · 3 years

Text

Under the cut: you will find a lengthy, yet concise summary of the historical life and rule of Louis XVI.

*** While this is not a mandatory read - it is interesting and will be referenced in most threads outside of the Modern AU, ( which must be requested to write in. ) Some knowledge may benefit you to know if you don’t have a good base in the history of the french revolution. I may add to this as I gain more sources and insight into the King’s personal life. ***

Name: Louis Auguste de France

Other Names: Louis XVI || Citizen Louis Capet ( Before Execution )

Titles: Duc de Berry ( Given at birth ) || Dauphin ( After his father died ) || King of France ( After his grandfather died )

Birthday: 23rd of August 1754 || Reign as King lasted from May 10th 1774 - September 21st 1792

Died: January 21st 1793 || Execution By Guillotine

Religion: Roman Catholic

Family Ties: House of Bourbon

Siblings: Louis XVIII Comte de Provence, Charles X Comte d’Artois, Élisabeth de France, Louis Duc de Burgundy ( Died at 9 ), Clotilde de France, Xavier Duc de Aquitaine ( Died at 1 ) , Marie Zéphyrine de France ( Died at 5 ), Marie - Thérèse de France ( Died at 2 ).

Parents: Marie-Josèphe of Saxony & Louis the Dauphine of France

Spouse: Marie Antonia Josepha Johanna || ( French Version ) Marie Antoinette ( Second Cousin, Once Removed. )

Biography:

Often passed over in favor of his older brother Louis ( Duc de Burgundy ) because he was more outgoing, handsome & intelligent. Tragically, he died at 9 & favor was shifted to the new future Dauphin. Louis Auguste was by all accounts a healthy but painfully shy & reserved child. He was equally as bright as his brother excelling in: Latin, History, Geography, Astronomy. He was also fluent in English & Italian. ( Louis liked to wrestle with his brothers & hunt with his grandfather. ) His special interest was in locksmithing & this was encouraged by those around him as a worthwhile pursuit even in his childhood. The subjects he was taught by the Duc de la Vauguyon additionally included: Religion, Morality & Humanities.

Louis married Marie on May 16th 1770 when he was just 15 and she was 14. By the time the two were married to form the French & Austrian alliance: the defeat of France, in the 7 years war had already made the French public view the new Dauphine as an unwelcome stranger to the country.

The couple only met 2 days before their marriage, and for this reason the marriage was cordial but very distant in the beginning. Louis was shy & also afraid of being manipulated by Marie for stately purposes --- this made him act coldly towards her in public. They did eventually foster a fondness for each other & their marriage was consummated in 1777.

( Louis XVI & Marie Antoinette’s reputations were damaged because they did not produce heirs in a traditionally ‘ timely manner ‘. )

After gentle prodding from Marie’s brother, Joseph II --- Louis began to take his conjugal duties seriously and Marie fell pregnant, eventually giving birth to 4 live-born children. ( Marie suffered 2 miscarriages and Louis - by all accounts - consoled her each time. ) Louis XVI also ‘ adopted ‘ six children additionally, though they were never granted royal status.

Louis took the throne in 1774 at age 19 after his grandfather died. By then, there was already resentment among the public for the royal family, lots of government debt incurred before he was installed as monarch, and so much responsibility that Louis himself did not feel ready & prepared to take on.

Louis XVI’s indecisiveness & lack of firmness - though grounded in the idea he wanted to be liked & loved - ultimately, led to part of his downfall. ( It should be noted Louis Auguste DID genuinely attempt to be a good and just king, the circumstances that line up before his assent to the throne were too vastly stacked against him. )

Louis reinstated the ‘ parlements ‘ & put a more experienced advisor in place to ensure that things were fair and on the up and up. Louis also signed the Edict of Versailles || Edict of Tolerance that allowed Non-Catholics to have the legal right to practice their faith(s), as well as restore legal/civic rights and status to them. This overturned the Edict of Fontainebleau which had reigned as law for a little over 100 years. While the Edict of Versailles didn’t claim freedom of religion - it decriminalized the practice of other religions and helped ease tensions based on religious differences in the country.

Radical financial reforms were a steadily growing need in the country because of the mounting debt ... the nobles refused to instate the necessary laws ultimately culminating in further dissatisfaction among the public and stoking the flames of the oncoming French Revolution. The publication of ‘ Le Compte - rendu au Roi ‘ -> ‘ The Records of Accounts for the King ‘ further ruined the monarchy’s reputation by publishing propaganda that was full of fictitious & inaccurate budgets meant to make France look more financially stable than it was. When the true extent of France’s debt was revealed: the common man & many nobles alike were shocked and disgusted, the nobility outright rejecting the reforms necessary to begin to rectify the scenario.

Finally, the country’s finances reached an appalling low --- and Louis was forced to use his absolute powers to force reforms, though they could only be maintained for more than 2 - 4 months maximum before he would be forced to revoke them. He closed down the french parliamentary system. The royal treasury was also unable to sustain the reforms imposed because it was in a crippled state as it was.

After much abuse from the the First & Second Estates ( after Louis reinstated the Estates-General ) the third estate decided unanimously declared themselves the National Assembly. Soon after Louis lost control of this newly formed legislative body - the revolution was underway and officially began with the Storming of the Bastille on July 14th 1789.

Louis Xvi’s Palace de Versailles was stormed by an angry mob on October 5th 1789. This was done in an attempt to kill Marie --- the now much hated symbol of frivolity to the French public. After the Marquis de Lafayette diffused the situation - the royal family was forced to move themselves to the Tuileries palace in Paris.

While plenty of key figures besides the king and queen attempted to gather strength to restore the former absolute power of the monarchy --- it would ultimately fail and many of these secret supporters either retracted loyalty to the crown under threat of death, or met grisly ends by the hands of the public & new governing body. Louis, finally realizing the danger he and his family were in and wanting to regain control of France - helped Axel von Fersen ( a rumored lover to the Queen ) plan the royal family’s escape to gather forces and gain protection by Austria. After a series of setbacks, missteps, poor judgements, indecision, and assorted other issues behind the scenes - the family was caught and returned to Paris ( Tuileries Palace ) on June 25th 1791 and placed under highly monitored ‘ house arrest ‘. It didn’t help that before they left, Louis left a manifesto denouncing democracy and asserting his authority as king by birthright. Many of his subjects felt torn and confused, though remained loyal ... until this incident in which the revolution was known to be imminent.

All in all, the call to arms fell on inactive deaf ears amid among other foreign monarchs, making the response woefully lackluster and this ultimately sealed the fate of the French aristocracy. On August 10th 1791, the people once again stormed the palace Louis and his family resided in forcing them all to take refuge with the Legislative Assembly.

Louis was officially arrested on August 13th 1792.

September 21st 1792 - the former Third Estate’s new government body the ‘ National Assembly ‘ announced France a republic and abolished the monarchy altogether. All of Louis - Auguste’s titles were taken and he was referred to as Citoyen Louis Capet. While many members wanted the gratification of executing the former king --- the fact some had backgrounds in legal work felt due process a necessity. An agreement was reached that there would be a trial for Louis before the National Convention.

Several charges were brought against Louis while he was being tried, though there were only three questions that mattered to the assembly:

1| Is Louis guilty ?

2| Whatever the decision, should there be an appeal to the people ?

3 | If found guilty: what punishment should Louis suffer?

On the 26th of December 1792, Louis responded tot he charges: Not Guilty. At this time, behind closed doors - he had already accepted his fate & knew that he would be found guilty. He was reported as wanting to hold his ground so that he might still be viewed favorably and as a good king to France.

Voting took place & after an uncomfortably close call - Louis was sentenced to death by the majority of one vote: his own cousin, the former Duc d’Orleans, voted to have his cousin executed immediately. After an unsuccessful attempt at swaying the decision - the King’s council was resigned ( read as: ‘ forced ‘ ) to allow the execution to proceed.

On Monday, January 21, 1793 --- The ( Former ) Sun King was executed by Guillotine at age 38. This happened on the Place de la Révolution. By most reputable accounts, Louis faced his death with resignation and dignity. He gave a small speech before hand and was stopped before he could complete it with a drum roll that signaled the Guillotine was ready.

After the execution, his body was taken to Madeleine Cemetery where he was given a small secret funeral service and then buried in an unmarked grave, head between his feet and covered in quicklime.

The cemetery closed in 1794. 21 years later, Louis XVIII had his brother and sister in law exhumed and reinterred in the Basilica of St. Denis. From 1816 - 1826 a monument honoring the King and Queen was erected in the same area the former cemetery and church occupied. It was named the ‘ Chapelle Expiatoire ‘.

#• Le Tendre Soleil Se Lèvera Á Nouveau. • ( Louis Auguste || Louis XVI. )#• You Can't Play My Cabinet Like A Harpsichord ... • ( NPCs. )#• Why Do Americans Think They Know It All ? • ( OOC Historical Rambling. )

4 notes · View notes

betterthedevilyouknowuk · 5 years

Text

Mythology Mondays - Beast of Gévaudan

The Beast of Gévaudan is the historical name associated with the man-eating wolf, dog or wolf-dog hybrid which terrorised the former province of Gévaudan, in the Margeride Mountains in south-central France between 1764 and 1767. The attacks, which covered an area stretching 90 by 80 kilometres (56 by 50 mi), were said to have been committed by a beast or beasts that had formidable teeth and immense tails according to contemporary eyewitnesses.

Victims were often killed by having their throats torn out. The French government used a considerable amount of manpower and money to hunt the animals; including the resources of several nobles, the army, civilians, and a number of royal huntsmen.

The number of victims differs according to sources. In 1987, one study estimated there had been 210 attacks; resulting in 113 deaths and 49 injuries; 98 of the victims killed were partly eaten. However, other sources claim it killed between 60 to 100 adults and children, as well as injuring more than 30.

Beginnings The Beast of Gévaudan carried out its first recorded attack in the early summer of 1764. A young woman, who was tending cattle in the Mercoire forest near Langogne in the eastern part of Gévaudan, saw the beast come at her. However the bulls in the herd charged the beast keeping it at bay, they then drove it off after it attacked a second time. Shortly afterwards the first official victim of the beast was recorded; 14-year-old Janne Boulet was killed near the village of Les Hubacs near the town of Langogne.

Over the later months of 1764, more attacks were reported throughout the region. Very soon terror had gripped the populace because the beast was repeatedly preying on lone men, women and children as they tended livestock in the forests around Gévaudan. Reports note that the beast seemed to only target the victim's head or neck regions.

By late December 1764 rumours had begun circulating that there may be a pair of beasts behind the killings. This was because there had been such a high number of attacks in such a short space of time, many had appeared to have been recorded and reported at the same time. Some contemporary accounts suggest the creature had been seen with another such animal, while others thought the beast was with its young.

On January 12, 1765, Jacques Portefaix and seven friends were attacked by the Beast. After several attacks, they drove it away by staying grouped together. The encounter eventually came to the attention of Louis XV who awarded 300 livres to Portefaix and another 350 livres to be shared among his companions. The king also directed that Portefaix be educated at the state's expense. He then decreed that the French state would help find and kill the beast.

Royal intervention

An 18th-century engraving of Antoine de Beauterne slaying the Wolf of Chazes.

Three weeks later Louis XV sent two professional wolf-hunters, Jean Charles Marc Antoine Vaumesle d'Enneval and his son Jean-François, to Gévaudan. They arrived in Clermont-Ferrand on February 17, 1765, bringing with them eight blood hounds which had been trained in wolf-hunting. Over the next four months the pair hunted for Eurasian wolves believing them to be the beast. However, as the attacks continued, they were replaced in June 1765 by François Antoine (also wrongly named Antoine de Beauterne), the king's harquebus bearer and Lieutenant of the Hunt who arrived in Le Malzieu on June 22.

On September 20, 1765, Antoine had killed his third large grey wolf measuring 80 cm (31 in) high, 1.7 m (5 ft 7 in) long, and weighing 60 kilograms (130 lb). The wolf, which was named Le Loup de Chazes after the nearby Abbaye des Chazes, was said to have been quite large for a wolf. Antoine officially stated: "We declare by the present report signed from our hand, we never saw a big wolf that could be compared to this one. Which is why we estimate this could be the fearsome beast that caused so much damage." The animal was further identified as the culprit by attack survivors who recognised the scars on its body inflicted by victims defending themselves. The wolf was stuffed and sent to Versailles where Antoine was received as a hero, receiving a large sum of money as well as titles and awards.

However, on December 2, 1765, another beast severely injured two men. A dozen more deaths are reported to have followed attacks by la Besseyre Saint Mary.

Final attacks

The killing of the creature that eventually marked the end of the attacks is credited to a local hunter named Jean Chastel, who shot it during a hunt organized by a local nobleman, the Marquis d'Apcher, on June 19, 1767. Writers later introduced the idea that Chastel shot the creature with a blessed silver bullet of his own manufacture and upon being opened, the animal's stomach was shown to contain human remains.

#mythology #folklore #mythologial mondays #myth #mythological #mythological monday #mythological mondays #dark

44 notes · View notes

harkgriddle · 2 years

Photo

-King Louis XIV becomes king of France in the 17th century and proceeds to spend the next 6 decades bankrupting the absolute fuck out of it via extreme military spending and palace building

-The peasantry get tired of the decades of living in abject impoverished hell, so they rise up and decapitate most of the royals of the French Revolution

(this eventually leads to Anastasia, I swear)

-Military leader Napoleon takes control of France. Although pledged to be different, he basically just does the same thing. He stays at Versailles and he begins vast military campaigns across Europe.

-In response to France taking over all of Europe twice in the last century, many small nations form together and create Germany in 1815 (they don’t call it that yet but it’s basically Germany).

-The new country holds quite the grudge over France, and for the next 100 years does everything in its power to build up its own military while simultaneously attempting to cut France off from other countries. It is the middle school equivalent of “I won’t be your friend if you’re friends with them”. This eventually leads to 2 large ally blocks in Europe by the year 1900. Everybody is sitting on opposite ends of the lunch room.

-One of the kids from the left side of the lunchroom assassinates one of the kids from the right side of the lunchroom, and so it leads to a big food fight between the two tables. It’s very dumb and very messy.

-Russia experiences extremely high death rates, both military deaths and civilian deaths. By some estimates, more civilians were killed in Russia than in France and Germany combined.

-Tired of fighting and starving, the Russian people, the ones who were left alive, began the revolution in Russia and would eventually murder Tsar Nicholas II and his children, including his 16-year old daughter, her Imperial Highness, the Grand Duchess Anastasia.

-Immediately after they kill the children, the Bolsheviks panic and realize that murdering a handful of kids isn’t the best PR move when you're seeking the approval for your new country. So they lie, and they tell everybody that the children are alive.

-The rumor that the Secret Princess Anastasia had escaped and was living in hiding fueled imaginations and legends for decades.

-In 1991, the graves of the Romanov family are finally found. But curiously they only find the bodies of Nicholas, his wife, and only 3 of their daughters. Anastasia’s body is missing. This seemingly reignites and adds fuel to the old tale.

-Don Bluth begins making the cartoon film Anastasia, based on the legend, and releases in through Fox studios a few years later in 1997

-(It should be noted, sadly, that Anastasia’s body was found in 2007. For some reason, the Bolsheviks buried her in a grave separate from the rest of her family the night of the murders. But DNA testing concluded it was indeed her.)

-In 2017, Disney buys Fox, making the Anastasia cartoon officially a Disney cartoon about a princess.

tl;dr French noble fuckery in the 17th century causes French and German policies that directly lead to war and the eventual murder of Anastasia, which sparks a rumor and eventually a movie which Disney buys

#history #this glosses over a lot #but it was getting long

0 notes

travelonlinetipsofficial · 3 years

Text

10 Best Romantic Things to Do in Paris

New Post has been published on https://www.travelonlinetips.com/10-best-romantic-things-to-do-in-paris/

10 Best Romantic Things to Do in Paris

Spending time relaxing together, just the two of you, is another way to celebrate love. In Paris there are countless ways in which to paint the town a Valentine red, but one of the most intimately romantic is to spend time together at a small, intimate theater on the Ile Saint-Louis. This gem, the Theatre de L’Ile St. Louis, is a 35-seater and has nightly programming, both of concerts and plays. What’s even better, an assortment of top-notch restaurants on the little island in the center of Paris, are less than a 5-minute walk away.

Another intimate way to celebrate the You that is the 2 of you, is a spa experience. Relaxing in the steam room, enjoying a glass of champagne in the hot tub and finishing with a massage is a romantic dream come true. The ultimate discreet Parisian spa is Sensation Spa in the 7th arrondissement. Or you could always spend an evening at Le Grand Rex, Europe’s biggest movie theater found here, in Paris. Located in the Grands Boulevards area, this gorgeous, historic movie theater is surrounded by trendy bars and eateries for before or after.

Paris is a city full of the emblems of love. Of course, the notion of romantic love is a relatively recent social concept, springing up first in historical references only in the late 17th c. It is even thought that the origin of the English word “romance” originates from a French vernacular dialect. Perfume, too, is credited to France. Le Grand Musee du Parfum is a sensual way to explore the art of scent with one another.

To celebrate love & romance in the City of Love, one needn’t wait for Valentine’s Day. Any special occasion or any special moment enjoyed by lovers can be revered as a sort of private Valentine’s moment. On this list, you will find just ten (of the dozens and dozens of possibilities here in Paris) recommendations of how to pay homage to this most noble of human emotions – love. To start with, book yourselves tickets online for L’Atelier des Lumieres. This immersive digital art experience, highlighting chosen artists, has been a hit since it first opened its doors in Paris a few short years ago. It is a family friendly activity, too, just in case your ‘date night’ includes the little ones. On that note, the Palais de la Decouverte is another immersive, experiential excursion that can be enjoyed ‘en deux’ or ‘en famille.‘ Their current temporary exhibit is devoted to L’Amour and understanding the physiological science behind it.

So, even though each year Valentine’s Day is the holiday that focuses all of us romantics on the romantic nature of love, for lucky Parisians, romance is just a state of mind. And this is a sate of mind that, with some discipline, you can embody every day of the year. For example, simply take a walk across the famous ‘Lover’s Bridge,’ the Pont des Arts at sunset or sunrise, to get that rush of romance.

The Eiffel Tower of course beckons seductively to all who visit Paris. So to give your visit that extra shot of romantic, start at the Trocadero which affords a wonderful view onto the Eiffel Tower in the near distance. And for those looking to pay tribute to Love itself, there is Le Mur des Je T’Aime a whole, wall dedicated to declarations of love.

A newer edition to the city’s cultural landscape, this aptly named ‘Light Workshop’ for the City of Light, draws you into an immersive art experience. Housed in a cavernous building in the trendy 11th arrondissement, once you step through the black doors, you enter into not just the chosen artist’s world, but his/her imagination, too. Digitally projected images from the artist’s repertoire and life are projected on all walls, the floor and the ceiling, creating a swirling light show all around you. It is a sort of Sound & Light show 2.0…but the immersive experience, the sound of music and narrative that accompanies the spectacle and the overall sensory stimulation makes this better than going to the movies. It’s also a great family activity.

Recommended for Romantic Things to Do because: An instant hit in the City of Light, this art-come-alive show by Culturespace draws spectators in and keeps them enthralled for the duration.

Paige’s expert tip: This is an all-ages activity. Many of the spectators walk around the floor space and then find themselves a spot to just sit back, gaze around and take it all in. The spectacle lasts about an hour, give or take, but you can stay as long as you like if you want to catch it on repeat.

Read more about Atelier des Lumieres →

A contemporary art museum dedicated to exhibiting and then supporting the artists even after the exhibits through the purchase of their work, this beautiful museum is a favorite of many Parisians. It is nestled in the Montparnasse district of Paris, hence it is central and accessible. The foundation collaborates with other city institutions to expand its exhibiting reach. The wildly popular, ‘We The Trees,’ temporary exhibit was extended several months and some of the auxiliary audio-visual media material can still be accessed on the site. This isn’t the only example of dynamic curating that the young team at the Fondation has a penchant for, so check the website to see what’s current. Likely there will be something that appeals to your artistic senses. And the grounds, in the summer time, are a welcoming, shady place to take a breath and enjoy an outdoor snack.

Recommended for Romantic Things to Do because: Nestled in an accessible Montparnasse neighborhood, this museum’s popularity with the local Parisians is understandable once you’ve visited.

Paige’s expert tip: Don’t be fooled by the name, this foundation is looks, acts and feels like a museum. It is devoted to contemporary art and its philosophy is such that the foundation purchases a substantial portion of the art it exhibits. Hence, it is more than just a place of display.

Read more about Le Pont des Arts →

A more charming ‘community theatre’ does not exist anywhere! Located on the ancient, historical and aristocratic Quai d’Anjou; at the end of a short covered passageway full of flowers and flora, is where you’ll find this little theatre. There is something going on nearly every day, often piano recitals at 6:30 in the evenings, and even more entertaining fare, such as theatre or musical variety shows from 9pm. This intimate little theatre is famous for its elegance as well as its programming. It seats a total of about 30 people on plush, red velvet theatre seats. The box office opens about 30 minutes before the show. Or you can reserve in advance and buy you tickets online. Check their website for upcoming shows, concerts and theatre pieces. Even such greats as Michael Lonsdale have headlined plays and presentations here, so be prepared to be charmed and pleasantly surprised.

Recommended for Romantic Things to Do because: With all the wonderful theaters to choose from in Paris, this one remains the most intimate and, certainly for a romantic evening, the best location.

Paige’s expert tip: There are few places in Paris more romantic that the Ile St. Louis. It becomes even moreso, the more you hear about its storied past and the greats who have called this little island in the center of Paris ‘home.’ A winning romantic evening is the following: A piano recital show at the only theatre here on the island, followed by dinner at any of the magnificent restaurants to be found within a short 5 minute walk. Or, reverse the order, and do the 9pm show after dinner.

Read more about Theatre de L’Ile Saint Louis – Paul Rey →

Located next to the Grand Palais, this science and technology museum (museum of discovery is the literal translation) is smaller and older than the Cite; des Sciences, and it has a charm all its own. Created in 1937 to help people understand scientific methods, the museum brings in excellent temporary exhibits to augment its permanent displays on physics, biology, electricity and astronomy. The real philosophy behind this museum is that most of us learn and comprehend scientific theory better when we have a chance to experience it. So many of the temporary and permanent exhibits here are hands-on. That’s a feature that is sure to make the kids, big and small, crack a smile. It also has a wonderful collection of original Da Vinci designs. Note: explanations are often in French only. METRO: Champs Elys–es-Clemenceau (line 1 or 3)

Recommended for Romantic Things to Do because: This is an interactive, fascinating science museum for young and old that happens to be just steps from the Champs-Elysées.

Paige’s expert tip: This museum is even better when you, or someone in your party, speak a bit of French. However, there are designated multilingual “scientific mediators” whose passion for science helps transmit the understanding of some of the basic scientific principles, like electricity.If yçu’ve ever visited the Exploratorium in San Francisco, you can easily draw comparisons to this immersive museum. Recent temporary exhibits include ‘De l’Amour,’ an exhibit dedicated to the physiological science behind love.

Read more about Palais de la Decouverte →

Source link

#Destinations

0 notes

ofprevioustimes · 3 years

Text

Athénaïs de Montespan, the malicious beauty.

From CANAL+ VERSAILLES/Alexandre Dumas

I. BASIC STATS

i. OTHER NAMES: Françoise-Athénaïs Rochechouart de Mortemart, Marquise of Montespan ii. MAIN PERIOD: 17th Century iii. PLACE OF BIRTH: Lussac-les-Châteaux, France iv. OCCUPATION(s): Noble; maîtresse-en-titre of Louis XIV v. RELIGION: Catholic vi. TERMS OF ADDRESS: “Madame de Montespan” vii. MUSE LEVEL: Low

II. PERSONALITY

Ambitious, hedonistic, flirtatious and charming, at least when she’s trying to get her way. Powerfully arrogant and extravagant, Athénaïs can be overwhelmingly demanding and expects people and things to meet her high standards. Her acid tongue has made many victims with her sharp, malicious remarks. Her first priority is her own pleasure, even to the detriment of other people.

Athénaïs values wealth, power, luxury and glamour.

III. MUSE-SPECIFIC POTENTIAL TRIGGERS

Mentions of rape, alcohol, pregnancy, child death, bullying and abuse.

IV. SKILLS & ABILITIES

Social intelligence. Music. Dancing. Horse riding. Strategic thinking.

V. INTERPRETATIONS OR CANON DIVERGENT POINTS

There might have been love between Athénaïs and Louis, or the closest thing to love which is available for a pair of narcissists, but in my interpretation her first interest was not in Louis the man, but Louis the king, who could afford her extravagances and indulge in her whims, giving her the best of everything.

VI. MUSE-SPECIFIC GUIDELINES

TBD.

VII. INTERACTIONS & BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS

Athénaïs is not the most likable person and she does not try to be. Her vanity and arrogance does not require that she be liked, instead she prefers to obtain a feeling of superiority with other people, most of the time. That said, she will be friendly if it suits her. She always acts out of interest, picking cleverly her allies and rivals.

Possible dynamics include, but are not limited to: rivalry, frenemies, manipulative, secretive, etc.

VIII. SHIPPING

The fact that Athénaïs is a hedonistic means that, among other pleasures, she loves flirting and sex, so if there is chemistry, she’s not a difficult character to ship with, but then again, romance and sweetness are unlikely.

Possible dynamics include, but are not limited to: advantageous, being mistress to someone with power and wealth, enemies to lovers, arranged marriages, toxic, etc.

IX. TAGS

General tag. Answered asks. Threads. Visage. Musings. Tunes.

#athénaïs: bio.#long post cw.#[expensive and glorious like the palace of versailles]: athénaïs de montespan

0 notes

goodqueenaly · 7 years

Note

Why did so many women at court aspire to become the king's mistress?

For one, being the king’s mistress could be rewarding on a personal level, as kings were known to lavish great wealth on their favorites. Alice Perrers, mistress to Edward III of England, was granted robes and jewels belonging to the dead Queen Philippa (the jewels were worth over six million pounds in today’s money), as well as over a dozen manors, by her royal lover. Barbara Palmer and Louise de Kerouaille, mistresses of the lascivious Charles II, were granted dukedoms in their own right, with their requisite lands and incomes, and Barbara was given Henry VIII’s Nonsuch Palace. Louis XIV was so entranced by Athenais, the Marquise de Montespan, that he granted her a suite of 20 rooms in Versailles (compared to the queen’s 10), and had built for her the Chateau de Clagny, spending millions of livres to do so. Leopold II of Belgium shocked and angered his subjects by the wealth the aging monarch lavished on his teenage mistress, Caroline Lacroix, including millions of francs (Caroline once bragged about spending three million in a single shopping spree) and estates in Belgium and France. Even foreign visitors would know to flatter the king’s favorite: when the future Gustav III of Sweden visited the court of Louis XV, he presented the king’s mistress, the notoriously luxury-loving Madame du Barry, a collar for her little spaniel, made of diamonds and with a ruby leash.

Being the royal mistress could also be an avenue to power. Henry II of France was so devoted to his lifelong passion Diane de Poitiers that the two would often collaborate on government letters and documents, even signing the bottom “HenriDiane”. The Protestant (later Catholic) Henry IV of France relied on his beloved mistress Gabrielle d’Estrees to make peace with the noble Catholic families of the country, and it was under her influence that he created the Edict of Nantes, which gave significant rights to French Huguenots (indeed, so trusted was Gabrielle that Henry gave her a seat on his Council of National Policy). Too, as an intimate of the king, a royal mistress would be expected to have the king’s ear in private moments ordinary courtiers could never dream of sharing, and could be a useful intermediary between the king and his courtiers. Such was the power and influence of Madame de Pompadour on Louis XV that Empress Maria Theresa of Austria’s ambassador approached her for aid in the negotiations that would lead to the Treaty of Versailles and the Diplomatic Revolution that would bring Austria and France together in alliance. Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany and second son of George III, was not a king, but he was commander in chief of the army from 1795 - a position he was forced to resign in 1809, when his mistress, Mary Anne Clarke, was brought before the House of Commons and testified that she had, with the duke’s knowledge and assistance, been selling army commissions (even pinning the names of those desiring commissions to the curtains in the home they shared).

Nor should family ambition be discounted; having great influence over the king meant that a mistress could secure boons for her kin as well as herself. While sleeping with Mary Boleyn and thereafter pursuing sister Anne, Henry VIII granted a number of honors to the Boleyn family: Sir Thomas Boleyn (father to Mary and Anne) was made Viscount Rochford in 1525, Earl of Wiltshire in 1529, and Lord Privy Seal in 1530; their brother George was knighted and made a Gentleman of the Privy Chamber in 1529 (at which time he was also granted the courtesy title Viscount Rochford), held several key offices in Henry VIII’s court, and was made an ambassador to France, doubtless via his sister’s influence. The family of Anne, Duchess of Etampes, benefited greatly from her affair with Francis I of France, as her uncle, Antoine Sanguin, was made Bishop of Orleans and a cardinal and named Grand Almoner by Francis I when the post became vacant and two brothers also rose high in Church hierarchy. (However, when Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk, suggested that his daughter Mary - widow of Henry VIII’s illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy - become the king’s mistress to wield similar influence she pointedly refused.)

And there was always the chance, however small (and however politically meaningless), that the king would make his mistress his wife. Indeed, Henry IV had come extremely close to marrying Gabrielle: in 1599, after writing to Pope Clement asking for an annulment from his marriage to Margaret of Valois, Henry gave Gabrielle his coronation ring and promised to wed her (unfortunately for Henry, she died on April 10 of that year, probably from eclampsia). Alexander II, Emperor of Russia, actually did marry his mistress, Catherine Dolgorukova, a little more than a month after his first wife, Marie of Hesse and by the Rhine, died, and gave Catherine the title Princess Yurievskaya and the status of “Serene Highness”; although the marriage was morganatic, there were fears, particularly within the imperial family, that Alexander would strive to put his children by Catherine in the succession (particularly as Catherine claimed Alexander had placed the imperial crown on her head in a private ceremony, and as Alexander had legitimized the children and made pointed comments about his son by Catherine, George Alexandrovich - commenting that George was a “real Russian” and introducing him to his heir, the future Alexander III, as George’s “eldest brother”). Louis XIV was far more secret about his marriage to Madame de Maintenon; although the marquise was never formally acknowledged as his wife, her presence at court was substantial, and for the roughly three decades their marriage lasted, Madame de Maintenon exerted far more influence over the Sun King than her predecessor, Maria Theresa, ever had.

#history #royal mistresses #alice perrers #barbara palmer #Louise de Kérouaille #athenais de montespan #madame du barry #Caroline lacroix #diane de poitiers #Gabrielle d’estrees #madame de pompadour #anne boleyn #mary boleyn #Catherine dolgorukova #madame de maintenon

746 notes · View notes

historybehindassassinscreed · 7 years

Photo

In Game:

The Palace of Versailles (Palais de Versailles) was the royal residence of the King of France, and the political center of French power for over a hundred years.

On December 27th, 1776 members of the Assassin Order, including Charles Dorian, met in the palace to conduct business with the King. However, unbeknownst to them, the Templar Shay Cormac had gained access to the grounds with help from Benjamin Franklin, under the pretext of meeting with a business associate. Seeking the Precursor box, Shay infiltrated the palace and assassinated Charles, while recovering the box at the same time.

As a crowd gathered around the body, Charles' son, Arno, returned, having chased Élise de la Serre through the palace's courtyards. He was then taken in by Élise's father, François, despite the man's role as the Grand Master of the French Templars.

In 1789, François himself was assassinated by Charles Gabriel Sivert and the Roi des Thunes in the palace's central courtyard, during a celebration in honor of Élise's induction into the Templar Order. Arno, having witnessed the murder, rushed to de la Serre's aid, but was arrested for the crime and thrown into the Bastille.

As the French Revolution progressed, the palace was finally abandoned by troops and citizens alike. By 1794, the palace was a popular target for bands of looters. That year, Arno, exiled from the Assassin Order and rejected by Élise, returned to Versailles, only to have his heirloom watch stolen one night after a heated tavern brawl. To retrieve it, Arno infiltrated the palace once more and killed the thieves' leader. He also encountered Élise there, who recovered the watch and convinced Arno to return to Paris, in order to help her bring down François-Thomas Germain, the man responsible for her father's death and takeover of the Templar Order by his extremists.

In Real Life:

The Palace of Versailles is an opulent complex and former royal residence outside of Paris, now a national landmark. It is located in the city of Versailles, Yvelines département, Île-de-France région, northern France, 10 miles (16 km) west-southwest of Paris. As the center of the French court, Versailles was one of the grandest theatres of European absolutism.

The earliest mention of the name of Versailles is found in a document which predates 1038, the Charte de l'abbaye Saint-Père de Chartres (Charter of the Saint-Père de Chartres Abbey), in which one of the signatories was a certain Hugo de Versailliis (Hugues de Versailles), who was seigneur of Versailles.

During this period, the village of Versailles centred on a small castle and church, and the area was governed by a local lord. Its location on the road from Paris to Dreux and Normandy brought some prosperity to the village but, following an outbreak of the Plague and the Hundred Years' War, the village was largely destroyed, and its population sharply declined. In 1575, Albert de Gondi, a naturalized Florentine who gained prominence at the court of Henry II, purchased the seigneury of Versailles.

The original residence was primarily a hunting lodge and private retreat for Louis XIII (reigned 1610–43) and his family when he hunted in the forests surrounding Versailles. In 1624 the king entrusted Jacques Lemercier with the construction of a château on the site. Its walls are preserved today as the exterior facade overlooking the Marble Court.

(Image source)

Under the guidance of Louis XIV (reigned 1643–1715), the residence was transformed (1661–1710) into an immense and extravagant complex surrounded by stylized French and English gardens. Every detail of its construction was intended to glorify the king. The additions were designed by such renowned architects as Jules Hardouin-Mansart, Robert de Cotte, and Louis Le Vau. Charles Le Brunover saw the interior decoration. Landscape artist André Le Nôtre created symmetrical French gardens that included ornate fountains with “magically” still water, expressing the power of humanity—and, specifically, the king—over nature.

By moving his court and government to Versailles, Louis XIV hoped to extract more control of the government from the nobility and to distance himself from the population of Paris. All the power of France emanated from this centre: there were government offices here, as well as the homes of thousands of courtiers, their retinues, and all the attendant functionaries of court. By requiring that nobles of a certain rank and position spend time each year at Versailles, Louis prevented them from developing their own regional power at the expense of his own and kept them from countering his efforts to centralise the French government in an absolute monarchy. The meticulous and strict court etiquette that Louis established, which overwhelmed his heirs with its petty boredom, was epitomised in the elaborate ceremonies and exacting procedures that accompanied his rising in the morning, known as the Lever, divided into a petit lever for the most important and a grand lever for the whole court. Like other French court manners, étiquette was quickly imitated in other European courts.

Perhaps the most-famous room in the palace is the Hall of Mirrors (1678–89). The gallery extends more than 230 feet (70 metres) and is characterized by 17 wide arcaded mirrors opposite 17 windows that overlook the gardens below. Glass chandeliers adorn the arched, ornately painted ceiling, upon which Le Brun depicted a series of 30 scenes glorifying the early years of the reign of Louis XIV. Gilded statues and reliefs border its marble walls.

(Image source)

On October 6th, 1789, the royal family had to leave Versailles and move to the Tuileries Palace in Paris, as a result of the Women's March on Versailles. During the early years of the French Revolution, preservation of the palace was largely in the hands of the citizens of Versailles. In October 1790, Louis XVI ordered the palace to be emptied of its furniture, requesting that most be sent to the Tuileries Palace. In response to the order, the mayor of Versailles and the municipal council met to draft a letter to Louis XVI in which they stated that if the furniture was removed, it would certainly precipitate economic ruin on the city. A deputation from Versailles met with the king on October 12th, after which Louis XVI, touched by the sentiments of the residents of Versailles, rescinded the order.

Eight months later, however, the fate of Versailles was sealed: on June 21st, 1791, Louis XVI was arrested at Varennes after which the Assemblée nationale constituante accordingly declared that all possessions of the royal family had been abandoned. To safeguard the palace, the Assemblée nationale constituante ordered the palace of Versailles to be sealed. On October 20th, 1792 a letter was read before the National Convention in which Jean-Marie Roland de la Platière, interior minister, proposed that the furnishings of the palace and those of the residences in Versailles that had been abandoned be sold and that the palace be either sold or rented. The sale of furniture transpired at auctions held between August 23rd, 1793 and 30 nivôse an III (January 19th, 1795). Only items of particular artistic or intellectual merit were exempt from the sale. These items were consigned to be part of the collection of a museum, which had been planned at the time of the sale of the palace furnishings.

In modern times, when visiting Versailles, tours of the palace are available.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Versailles

http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-palace-of-versailles-history-facts.html

https://www.livescience.com/38903-palace-of-versailles-facts-history.html

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Palace-of-Versailles

https://www.linkparis.com/versailles.htm

#in other news I had my 19th birthday yesterday!#Assassin's Creed #AC U #Locations

12 notes · View notes

steliosagapitos · 6 years

Photo

Madame de Pompadour

Jeanne Antoinette Poisson, Marquise de Pompadour (French: [pɔ̃.pa.duːʁ]; 29 December 1721 – 15 April 1764), commonly known as Madame de Pompadour, was a member of the French court and was the official chief mistress of Louis XV from 1745 to 1751, and remained influential as court favourite until her death. She took charge of the king’s schedule and was a valued aide and advisor, despite her frail health and many political enemies. She secured titles of nobility for herself and her relatives, and built a network of clients and supporters. She was particularly careful not to alienate the Queen, Marie Leszczyńska. On February 8, 1756, the Marquise de Pompadour was named as the thirteenth lady in waiting to the queen, a position considered the most prestigious at the court, which accorded her with honors. She was a major patron of architecture and decorative arts, especially porcelain. She was a patron of the philosophes of the Enlightenment, including Voltaire. Hostile critics at the time generally tarred her as a malevolent political influence, but historians are more favorable, emphasizing her successes as a patron of the arts and a champion of French pride.

Jeanne Antoinette Poisson was born on 29 December 1721 in Paris to François Poisson (1684–1754) and his wife Madeleine de La Motte (1699–1745). It is suspected that her biological father was either the rich financier Pâris de Montmartel or the tax collector (fermier général) Le Normant de Tournehem. Le Normant de Tournehem became her legal guardian when François Poisson was forced to leave the country in 1725 after a scandal over a series of unpaid debts, a crime at that time punishable by death. (He was cleared eight years later and allowed to return to France.)

At age 5 Jeanne Antoinette was sent to receive the finest quality education of the day in an Ursuline convent in Poissy, where she gained admiration for her wit and charm. Due to poor health, thought to be whooping cough, Jeanne Antoinette returned home in January 1730 at age 9. During this time her mother took her to a fortuneteller, Madame de Lebon, who predicted that the girl would one day reign over the heart of a King. Henceforth she became known as “Reinette”, meaning "little queen", and was groomed to become the mistress of Louis XV. Tournehem arranged for Jeanne Antoinette to receive a private education at home with the best teachers of the day who taught her dancing, drawing, painting, and engraving, theatre, the arts, and the ability to memorize entire plays. It may have been this sponsoring of Jeanne Antoinette's education in particular that sparked rumors of his paternity to Poisson.

At the age of nineteen, Jeanne Antoinette was married to Charles Guillaume Le Normant d'Étiolles, nephew of her guardian, Charles Lenormand de Tournehem, who initiated the match and the large financial incentives that came with it. On 15 December 1740, Tournehem made his nephew his sole heir, disinheriting all his other nephews and nieces, the children of his brother and sister. These included the estate at Étiolles (28 km south of Paris), a wedding gift from her guardian, which was situated on the edge of the royal hunting ground of the forest of Sénart. Once married, Le Normant d'Étiolles fell passionately in love with his wife, whilst she maintained that she would never leave him – except for the King. The couple had a son who died in infancy and a daughter, Alexandrine Le Normant d'Étiolles, born in 1744, who died at the age of nine.

Jeanne Antoinette’s marital status allowed her to frequent celebrated salons in Paris, such as those hosted by Mesdames de Tencin, Geoffin, du Deffand, and others. Within these salons she crossed paths with principal figures of the Enlightenment, including Voltaire, Charles Pinot Duclos, Montesquieu, Helvétius, and Bernard de Fontenelle. Additionally, Jeanne Antoinette created her own salon at Étiolles, which was attended by many of the cultural elite, among them, Crébillon fils, Montesquieu, the Cardinal de Bernis, and Voltaire. Within these circles she learned the fine art of conversation and developed the sharp wit for which she would later become known at Versailles.

Due to her involvement in Paris salons as well as her grace and beauty, Louis XV had heard the name of Jeanne Antoinette mentioned at court as early as 1742. In 1744 Jeanne Antoinette sought to catch the eye of the King whilst he led the hunt in the forest of Sénart. Because she occupied an estate near this location she was permitted to follow the royal party at a distance. However, wanting to attract the King’s notice, Jeanne Antoinette drove directly in front of the King’s path, once in a pink phaeton, wearing a blue dress, and once in a blue phaeton, wearing a pink dress. The King sent a gift of venison to her. Though the King’s current mistress, Madame de Châteauroux, had warned off Jeanne Antoinette, the position became vacant on 8 December 1744 when Châteauroux died. On February 24, 1745, Jeanne Antoinette received a formal invitation to attend the masked ball held on February 25 at the Palace of Versailles to celebrate the marriage of the Dauphin Louis de France to Infanta Maria Teresa of Spain (1726–46). It was at this ball that the King, disguised along with seven courtiers as a yew tree, publicly declared his affection for Jeanne Antoinette. Before all of court and the royal family, Louis unmasked himself before Jeanne Antoinette, who was dressed as Diana the Huntress, in reference to their encounter in the forest of Sénart.

By March, she was the king's mistress, installed at Versailles in an apartment directly above his. On 7 May, the official separation between her and her husband was pronounced. To be presented at court, she required a title. The king purchased the marquisate of Pompadour on 24 June and gave the estate, with title and coat-of-arms, to Jeanne Antoinette, making her a Marquise. On September 14 1745, Madame de Pompadour made her formal entry before the King, presented by the king's cousin, the Princess de Conti. Determined to make her place at court secure, Pompadour immediately attempted to forge a good relationship with the royal family. After the Queen engaged Pompadour in conversation by enquiring after a mutual acquaintance, Madame de Saissac, Pompadour responded in delight, swearing her respect and loyalty to Marie Leszczyńska. Pompadour quickly mastered the highly mannered court etiquette. However, her mother died on Christmas Day of the same year, and did not live to see her daughter's achievement of becoming the undisputed royal mistress.

Through her position as Court Favorite the Marquise, Madame de Pompadour wielded considerable power and influence. Throughout her time as court favorite she was elevated on October 12, 1752 to Duchess, and in 1756 to lady-in-waiting to the queen, the most noble rank possible for a woman at court. Pompadour effectively played the role of prime minister, becoming responsible for appointing advancements, favors, and dismissals, and contributed in domestic and foreign politics.

Her importance was such that she was approached in 1755 by Wenzel Anton Graf Kaunitz, a prominent Austrian diplomat, asking her to intervene in the negotiations which led to the Treaty of Versailles. This was the beginning of the Diplomatic Revolution, which saw France allied to her former enemy Austria.

Under these changed alliances, the European powers entered the Seven Years' War, which saw France, Austria, and Russia pitted against Britain and Prussia. France suffered a defeat at the hands of the Prussians in the Battle of Rossbach in 1757, and eventually lost her American colonies to the British. After Rossbach, Madame de Pompadour is alleged to have comforted the king with the now-famous byword: "au reste, après nous, le Déluge" ("Besides, after us, the Deluge"). France emerged from the war diminished and virtually bankrupt.

Madame de Pompadour persisted in her support of these policies, and when Cardinal de Bernis failed her, she brought Choiseul into office and supported and guided him in all his great plans: the Pacte de Famille, the suppression of the Jesuits and the Treaty of Paris (1763). Britain's victories in the war had allowed it to surpass France as the leading colonial power — something which was commonly blamed on Pompadour. But Madame de Pompadour supported great ministers like Bertin and Machaut who introduced important fiscal and economic reforms (trade, infrastructure, income taxes) which made France the richest nation in the world.

Pompadour protected the Physiocrates school (its leader was Quesnay, her own doctor) which paved the way for Adam Smith's theories. She also defended the Encyclopédie edited by Denis Diderot and Jean le Rond d'Alembert against those, among them the Archbishop of Paris Christophe de Beaumont, who sought to have it suppressed.

The marquise had many enemies among the royal courtiers who felt it a disgrace that the king would thus compromise himself with a commoner. She was very sensitive to the unending libels called poissonnades, analogous to mazarinade against Cardinal Mazarin and a pun on her family name, Poisson, which means "fish" in French. Only with great reluctance did Louis take punitive action against her known enemies, such as Louis François Armand du Plessis, duc de Richelieu.

Madame de Pompadour was able to wield such influence at court due to the invaluable role she played as a friend and confidant of the King. In opposition to previous mistresses of Louis XV, Pompadour made herself invaluable to the King by becoming the only person whom Louis trusted and who could be counted on to tell him the truth. Pompadour was an indispensable comfort to Louis who was prone to melancholy and boredom. She alone was able to captivate and amuse him, and would entertain Louis with elegant parties, afternoons of hunting, and journeying between their various real estate holdings.[

Around 1750 Madame de Pompadour’s role as friend of the King became her solitary role, as she ceased her sexual relationship with the King. The end of this sexual relationship was in part attributed to Pompadour’s poor health, as she suffered the after effects of whooping cough, recurring colds and bronchitis, spitting blood, headaches, three miscarriages to the King, as well as an unconfirmed case of leucorrhoea. In addition Pompadour admitted to having “the misfortune to be of a very cold temperament” and attempts to increase her libido with a diet of truffles, celery and vanilla were unsuccessful. Furthermore, in 1750 the Jubilee year placed pressure upon the King to repent of his sins and renounce his mistress. In order to cement her continuing importance as favourite in the face of these impediments, Pompadour took on the role of "friend of the King" which she announced through artistic patronage. Pompadour’s announcement was most prominently declared through her commission from Jean Baptiste Pigalle, of a sculpture representing herself as Amitié [friendship], offering herself to a now lost pendant sculpture of Louis XV.

Despite misconceptions perpetuated by her contemporaries and much of historical discourse, Pompadour did not supplant her role as mistress by employing replacement lovers for the king. Following the cessation of Pompadour’s sexual relationship with Louis, a private harem was created to satisfy his sexual needs; however, Pompadour was not involved, other than to accept it as a necessity.

When Pompadour was no longer able to perform her duties as mistress, she had become an invaluable friend and as such Louis did not want to find an official replacement. Accordingly his staff were instructed to create a private harem known as Le Parc aux Cerf or ‘Deer Park’, which would house low born, uneducated virginal girls to pleasure the King. Pompadour’s only contribution to the Deer Park was to accept it as a favorable alternative to a rival at court, as she stated: "It is his heart I want! All these little girls with no education will not take it from me. I would not be so calm if I saw some pretty woman of the court or the capital trying to conquer it.

Madame de Pompadour was an influential patron of the arts, who played a central role in making Paris the perceived capital of taste and culture in Europe. She attained this influence through her appointment of her guardian Charles Le Normant de Tournehem, and later her brother, Abel Poisson in the post of Directeur Général des Bâtiments, which controlled government policy and expenditures for the arts. She championed French pride by constructing and later outright buying a porcelain factory at Sévres in 1759, which became one of the most famous porcelain manufacturers in Europe, and which provided skilled jobs for the region. Numerous sculptors and portrait painters were patronized by Pompadour, among them the court artist Jean-Marc Nattier, in the 1750s François Boucher, Jean-Baptiste Réveillon and François-Hubert Drouais. She patronized Jacques Guay, the gemstone engraver, who taught her to engrave in onyx, jasper and other precious stones. Pompadour greatly influenced the Rococo interior decorative style, through her constant refurnishing of the fifteen residences she held with Louis, and she has been hailed as a major innovator and influence of the Rococo style.

Louis XV remained devoted to Pompadour until her death from tuberculosis in 1764 at the age of forty-two. Louis nursed her through her illness. Even her enemies admired her courage during the final painful weeks. Voltaire wrote: "I am very sad at the death of Madame de Pompadour. I was indebted to her and I mourn her out of gratitude. It seems absurd that while an ancient pen-pusher, hardly able to walk, should still be alive, a beautiful woman, in the midst of a splendid career, should die at the age of forty-two."[36] Many of her enemies were, however, greatly relieved. Looking at the rain during the departure of his mistress' coffin from Versailles, the devastated King reportedly said: "La marquise n'aura pas de beau temps pour son voyage." ("The marquise won't have good weather for her journey.") She was buried at the Couvent des Capucines (fr) in Paris.

Most of her portraits and depictions have been painted by the artist: - François Boucher -.

http://world4.eu/madame-de-pompadour-political-power-general-influence/.

youtube

2 notes · View notes

iafayettes · 7 years

Quote

When Francis Jr. graduated from the University of Edinburgh in 1819, he journeyed to America and took possession of the family lands at Long Canes. He joined his father in an 1823 petition that included testimonials from such assorted personages as John Adams and John C Hamilton, the son of Alexander Hamilton.

John Laurens and the American Revolution, by Gregory Massey

The full letter from John Church Hamilton:

In the proceedings of the Senate, I yesterday observed the Report of the Committee of Foreign Relations on the Petition of Francis Henderson Jr. In the course of my inquiries I have had an opportunity of forming an opinion of the services of Lieut. Col. Laurens and of the estimation in which he was held by the family of the Commander in chief, which entitles him, beyond all question to the first rank among the young men of the revolution. During his immediate attendance at headquarters he was, with Col. Hamilton always selected to perform the most delicate offices of his station, and was entrusted with Gen. Washington’s most secret confidences, and, from the period of the arrival of Ct D'Estaing, until the close of the campaign of 1781, in the communications with the officers of our ally, the aids derived from him were invaluable

His military career has left behind him an uninterrupted blaze of glory. Sent forward to R Island, by Gen W. to superintend the conduct of affairs in that quarter until Gen. Greene took the command; to Col. Laurens is principally attributed the reconciliation of D'Estaing, who had been offended by Gen. Sullivan’s indiscretion, which excited the most serious apprehensions as to its effect on our ally. His gallantry on this occasion was so conspicuous that he received from Congress a vote of thanks and a tender of a commission of Colonel, which he declined from delicacy to his brother aids. At Monmouth where every member of Gen. W’s family seemed to contend, not only for their country but for their personal reputation, as connected with their chief, he participated in all the exposure of the day — and, in the controversy between W. & Lee which agitated the camp and Congress, such was his devotion to the former that, late in the year, he invited Gen. Lee to a rencontre, who, after receiving a slight wound, made an explanation equally honorable to himself and satisfactory to his antagonist.

On the invasion of Georgia in ‘79, Co L. hastened to Carolina. Here he was conspicuous in preparing for the expected invasion. In order to aid the councils of the State, he was elected a member of their Legislature where he used every argument to call out the militia and forward the black levies which he had begun to recruit. On the arrival of Gen. Lincoln, he immediately joined him; was present in the storm of Savannah, and such was his chivalry, that, after the retreat was sounded, and the troops had fallen back, he continued on, in the direction of the enemy’s fire until C D'Estaing, who was himself wounded, pointed him out to Lincoln, who ordered him to draw off a detachment in “order to remove him from the field. The misfortune of that day menacing the most alarming consequences, Laurens rode express to Philadelphia, in order to urge succours to the Southern Army. Here he received a new mark of confidence; being elected by Congress Secretary to the Minister at Versailles — a situation which he peremptorily declined (though sought for by the most conspicuous names in the country) — in order to rejoin the army, and was at last induced to accept, on an intimation “that there was no other individual on whom the two parties in congress could unite.” Circumstances having occurred to render his departure on this service unnecessary, he hastened from Philadelphia and arrived in sufficient season to take part in the defence of Charleston, where I presume, he was taken prisoner — (this fact I have to learn).

The most important incident, however, of his life and that having the most immediate relation to the claim before you, is his mission as Envoy to France in Feby. 1781. The magnitude of his services on this occasion are matters of history, but among many interesting incidents connected with this event there is one which may not be before the public. Vergennes was opposed to any open interference on our behalf at the outset of the quarrel, and always continued adverse to our independence. In this spirit he presented every obstacle in the way of Col. Laurens negotiation,— Wearied by these delays L. obtained an interview with “him, and after a warm expostulation, characteristic of his noble spirit, he broke from him — prepared a memorial to the king, and, waiting upon him in the succeeding levee, regardless of the etiquette of the court, handed it to Louis in person. This decisive bearing although it excited great astonishment, was followed by the happiest effects. On the succeeding day the ministers contended with each other in their zeal to promote his views, and he returned here in sufficient season to aid us in a most critical posture of our affairs. (The money obtained by Laurens was deposited in the Bank of N. A. and sustained the financial operations of Mr. Morris until the signature of the provisional treaty). Laurens arrived in Boston, in Sept. 1781, and he immediately joined the army and in the storm of the Redoubt on the night of the 14th Oct, which was the closing scene of my father’s service, L. who, with a body of picked men, was detached by him to take the enemy in reverse and intercept their retreat, entered the works among the foremost and made prisoner the commanding officer. As a compliment to his gallantry and in reference to the capture of Charleston, he with the Viscount De Noailles, was appointed a commissioner to settle the terms of the capitulation.

#John Laurens #John Church Hamilton #Francis Henderson Jr

47 notes · View notes

thefortyeightlawsofpower-blog · 7 years

Text

LAW # 18 : DO NOT BUILD FORTRESSES TO PROTECT YOURSELF—ISOLATION IS DANGEROUS

JUDGEMENT

The world is dangerous and enemies are everywhere—everyone has to protect themselves. A fortress seems the safest. But isolation exposes you to more dangers than it Protects you from—it cuts you off from valuable information, it makes you conspicuous and an easy target. Better to circulate among people, find allies, mingle. You are shielded from your enemies by the crowd.

TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW

Ch‘in Shih Huang Ti, the first emperor of China (221-210 B.C.), was the mightiest man of his day. His empire was vaster and more powerful than that of Alexander the Great. He had conquered all of the kingdoms surrounding his own kingdom of Ch’in and unified them into one massive realm called China. But in the last years of his life, few, if anyone, saw him.

The emperor lived in the most magnificent palace built to that date, in the capital of Hsien-yang. The palace had 270 pavilions; all of these were connected by secret underground passageways, allowing the emperor to move through the palace without anyone seeing him. He slept in a different room every night, and anyone who inadvertently laid eyes on him was instantly beheaded. Only a handful of men knew his whereabouts, and if they revealed it to anyone, they, too, were put to death.

The first emperor had grown so terrified of human contact that when he had to leave the palace he traveled incognito, disguising himself carefully. On one such trip through the provinces, he suddenly died. His body was borne back to the capital in the emperor’s carriage, with a cart packed with salted fish trailing behind it to cover up the smell of the rotting corpse—no one was to know of his death. He died alone, far from his wives, his family, his friends, and his courtiers, accompanied only by a minister and a handful of eunuchs.

THE MASQUE OF THE RED DEATH

The “Red Death” had long devastated the country. No pestilence had ever been so fatal, or so hideous. Blood was its Avatur and its seal—the redness and horror of blood. There were sharp pains, and sudden dizziness, and then profuse bleeding at the pores, with dissolution.... And the whole seizure, progress, and termination of the disease, were the incidents of half an hour. But the Prince Prospero was happy and dauntless and sagacious. When his dominions were half-depopulated, he summoned to his presence a thousand hale and light-hearted friends from among the knight, and dames of his court, and with these retired to the deep seclusion of one of his castellated abbeys. This was an extensive and magnificent structure, the creation of the prince’s own eccentric yet august taste. A strong and lofty wall girdled it in. This wall had gates of iron. The courtier.s, having entered, brought furnaces and massy hammers and welded the bolts. They resolved to leave means neither of ingress nor egress to the sudden impulses of despair or of frenzy from within. The abbey was amply provisioned. With such precautions the courtiers might bid defiance to contagion. The external world could take care of itself In the meantime it was folly to grieve, or to think. The prince had provided all the appliances of pleasure. There were buffoons, there were improvisatori, there were ballet-dancers, there were musicians, there was Beauty, there was wine. All these and security were within. Without was the “Red Death.” It was toward the close of the fifth or sixth month of his seclusion, and while the pestilence raged most furiously abroad, that the Prince Prospero entertained his thousand friends at a masked ball of the most unusual magnificence. It was a voluptuous scene, that masquerade.... ... And the revel went whirlingly on, until at length there commenced the sounding of midnight upon the clock.... And thus too, it happened, perhaps, that before the last echoes of the last chime had utterly sunk into silence, there were many individuals in the crowd who had found leisure to become aware of the presence of a masked figure which had arrested the attention of no single individual before.... The figure was tall and gaunt, and shrouded from head to foot in the habiliments of the grave. The mask which concealed the visage was made so nearly to resemble the countenance of a stiffened corpse that the closest scrutiny must have had difficulty in detecting the cheat. And yet all this might have been endured, if not approved, by the mad revellers around. But the mummer had gone so far as to assume the type of the Red Death. His vesture was dabbled in blood—and his broad brow, with all the features of the face, was sprinkled with the scarlet horror ... ... A throng of the revellers at once threw themselves into the black apartment, and, seizing the mummer, whose tall figure stood erect and motionless within the shadow of the ebony clock, gasped in unutterable horror at finding the grave cerements and corpse-like mask, which they handled with so violent a rudeness, untenanted by any tangible form. And now was acknowledged the presence of the Red Death. He had come like a thief in the night. And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.

THE MASQUE OF THE RED DEATH, EDGAR ALLAN POE, 1809-1849

Interpretation

Shih Huang Ti started off as the king of Ch’in, a fearless warrior of unbridled ambition. Writers of the time described him as a man with “a waspish nose, eyes like slits, the voice of a jackal, and the heart of a tiger or wolf.” He could be merciful sometimes, but more often he “swallowed men up without a scruple.” It was through trickery and violence that he conquered the provinces surrounding his own and created China, forging a single nation and culture out of many. He broke up the feudal system, and to keep an eye on the many members of the royal families that were scattered across the realm’s various kingdoms, he moved 120,000 of them to the capital, where he housed the most important courtiers in the vast palace of Hsien-yang. He consolidated the many walls on the borders and built them into the Great Wall of China. He standardized the country’s laws, its written language, even the size of its cartwheels.

As part of this process of unification, however, the first emperor outlawed the writings and teachings of Confucius, the philosopher whose ideas on the moral life had already become virtually a religion in Chinese culture. On Shih Huang Ti’s order, thousands of books relating to Confucius were burned, and anyone who quoted Confucius was to be beheaded. This made many enemies for the emperor, and he grew constantly afraid, even paranoid. The executions mounted. A contemporary, the writer Han-fei-tzu, noted that “Ch’in has been victorious for four generations, yet has lived in constant terror and apprehension of destruction.”

As the emperor withdrew deeper and deeper into the palace to protect himself, he slowly lost control of the realm. Eunuchs and ministers enacted political policies without his approval or even his knowledge; they also plotted against him. By the end, he was emperor in name only, and was so isolated that barely anyone knew he had died. He had probably been poisoned by the same scheming ministers who encouraged his isolation.

That is what isolation brings: Retreat into a fortress and you lose contact with the sources of your power. You lose your ear for what is happening around you, as well as a sense of proportion. Instead of being safer, you cut yourself off from the kind of knowledge on which your life depends. Never enclose yourself so far from the streets that you cannot hear what is happening around you, including the plots against you.

OBSERVANCE OF THE LAW

Louis XIV had the palace of Versailles built for him and his court in the 1660s, and it was like no other royal palace in the world. As in a beehive, everything revolved around the royal person. He lived surrounded by the nobility, who were allotted apartments nestled around his, their closeness to him dependent on their rank. The king’s bedroom occupied the literal center of the palace and was the focus of everyone’s attention. Every morning the king was greeted in this room by a ritual known as the lever.

At eight A.M., the king’s first valet, who slept at the foot of the royal bed, would awaken His Majesty. Then pages would open the door and admit those who had a function in the lever. The order of their entry was precise: First came the king’s illegitimate sons and his grandchildren, then the princes and princesses of the blood, and then his physician and surgeon. There followed the grand officers of the wardrobe, the king’s official reader, and those in charge of entertaining the king. Next would arrive various government officials, in ascending order of rank. Last but not least came those attending the lever by special invitation. By the end of the ceremony, the room would be packed with well over a hundred royal attendants and visitors.

The day was organized so that all the palace’s energy was directed at and passed through the king. Louis was constantly attended by courtiers and officials, all asking for his advice and judgement. To all their questions he usually replied, “I shall see.”

As Saint-Simon noted, “If he turned to someone, asked him a question, made an insignificant remark, the eyes of all present were turned on this person. It was a distinction that was talked of and increased prestige.” There was no possibility of privacy in the palace, not even for the king—every room communicated with another, and every hallway led to larger rooms where groups of nobles gathered constantly. Everyone’s actions were interdependent, and nothing and no one passed unnoticed: “The king not only saw to it that all the high nobility was present at his court,” wrote Saint-Simon, “he demanded the same of the minor nobility. At his lever and coucher, at his meals, in his gardens of Versailles, he always looked about him, noticing everything. He was offended if the most distinguished nobles did not live permanently at court, and those who showed themselves never or hardly ever, incurred his full displeasure. If one of these desired something, the king would say proudly: ‘I do not know him,’ and the judgement was irrevocable.”

Interpretation

Louis XIV came to power at the end of a terrible civil war, the Fronde. A principal instigator of the war had been the nobility, which deeply resented the growing power of the throne and yearned for the days of feudalism, when the lords ruled their own fiefdoms and the king had little authority over them. The nobles had lost the civil war, but they remained a fractious, resentful lot.

The construction of Versailles, then, was far more than the decadent whim of a luxury-loving king. It served a crucial function: The king could keep an eye and an ear on everyone and everything around him. The once proud nobility was reduced to squabbling over the right to help the king put on his robes in the morning. There was no possibility here of privacy—no possibility of isolation. Louis XIV very early grasped the truth that for a king to isolate himself is gravely dangerous. In his absence, conspiracies will spring up like mushrooms after rain, animosities will crystallize into factions, and rebellion will break out before he has the time to react. To combat this, sociability and openness must not only be encouraged, they must be formally organized and channeled.

These conditions at Versailles lasted for Louis’s entire reign, some fifty years of relative peace and tranquillity. Through it all, not a pin dropped without Louis hearing it.

Solitude is dangerous to reason, without being favorable to virtue.... Remember that the solitary mortal is certainly luxurious, probably superstitious, and possibly mad. Dr. Samuel Johnson, 1709-1784

KEYS TO POWER

Machiavelli makes the argument that in a strictly military sense a fortress is invariably a mistake. It becomes a symbol of power’s isolation, and is an easy target for its builders’ enemies. Designed to defend you, fortresses actually cut you off from help and cut into your flexibility. They may appear impregnable, but once you retire to one, everyone knows where you are; and a siege does not have to succeed to turn your fortress into a prison. With their small and confined spaces, fortresses are also extremely vulnerable to the plague and contagious diseases. In a strategic sense, the isolation of a fortress provides no protection, and actually creates more problems than it solves.

Because humans are social creatures by nature, power depends on social interaction and circulation. To make yourself powerful you must place yourself at the center of things, as Louis XIV did at Versailles. All activity should revolve around you, and you should be aware of everything happening on the street, and of anyone who might be hatching plots against you. The danger for most people comes when they feel threatened. In such times they tend to retreat and close ranks, to find security in a kind of fortress. In doing so, however, they come to rely for information on a smaller and smaller circle, and lose perspective on events around them. They lose maneuverability and become easy targets, and their isolation makes them paranoid. As in warfare and most games of strategy, isolation often precedes defeat and death.

In moments of uncertainty and danger, you need to fight this desire to turn inward. Instead, make yourself more accessible, seek out old allies and make new ones, force yourself into more and more different circles. This has been the trick of powerful people for centuries.

The Roman statesman Cicero was born into the lower nobility, and had little chance of power unless he managed to make a place for himself among the aristocrats who controlled the city. He succeeded brilliantly, identifying everyone with influence and figuring out how they were connected to one another. He mingled everywhere, knew everyone, and had such a vast network of connections that an enemy here could easily be counterbalanced by an ally there.

The French statesman Talleyrand played the game the same way. Although he came from one of the oldest aristocratic families in France, he made a point of always staying in touch with what was happening in the streets of Paris, allowing him to foresee trends and troubles. He even got a certain pleasure out of mingling with shady criminal types, who supplied him with valuable information. Every time there was a crisis, a transition of power—the end of the Directory, the fall of Napoleon, the abdication of Louis XVIII—he was able to survive and even thrive, because he never closed himself up in a small circle but always forged connections with the new order.

This law pertains to kings and queens, and to those of the highest power: The moment you lose contact with your people, seeking security in isolation, rebellion is brewing. Never imagine yourself so elevated that you can afford to cut yourself off from even the lowest echelons. By retreating to a fortress, you make yourself an easy target for your plotting subjects, who view your isolation as an insult and a reason for rebellion.

Since humans are such social creatures, it follows that the social arts that make us pleasant to be around can be practiced only by constant exposure and circulation. The more you are in contact with others, the more graceful and at ease you become. Isolation, on the other hand, engenders an awkwardness in your gestures, and leads to further isolation, as people start avoiding you.

In 1545 Duke Cosimo I de’ Medici decided that to ensure the immortality of his name he would commission frescoes for the main chapel of the church of San Lorenzo in Florence. He had many great painters to choose from, and in the end he picked Jacopo da Pontormo. Getting on in years, Pontormo wanted to make these frescoes his chef d’oeuvre and legacy. His first decision was to close the chapel off with walls, partitions, and blinds. He wanted no one to witness the creation of his masterpiece, or to steal his ideas. He would outdo Michelangelo himself. When some young men broke into the chapel out of curiosity, Jacopo sealed it off even further.

Pontormo filled the chapel’s ceiling with biblical scenes—the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah’s ark, on and on. At the top of the middle wall he painted Christ in his majesty, raising the dead on Judgment Day. The artist worked on the chapel for eleven years, rarely leaving it, since he had developed a phobia for human contact and was afraid his ideas would be stolen.

Pontormo died before completing the frescoes, and none of them has survived. But the great Renaissance writer Vasari, a friend of Pontormo’s who saw the frescoes shortly after the artist’s death, left a description of what they looked like. There was a total lack of proportion. Scenes bumped against scenes, figures in one story being juxtaposed with those in another, in maddening numbers. Pontormo had become obsessed with detail but had lost any sense of the overall composition. Vasari left off his description of the frescoes by writing that if he continued, “I think I would go mad and become entangled in this painting, just as I believe that in the eleven years of time Jacopo spent on it, he entangled himself and anyone else who saw it.” Instead of crowning Pontormo’s career, the work became his undoing.

These frescoes were visual equivalents of the effects of isolation on the human mind: a loss of proportion, an obsession with detail combined with an inability to see the larger picture, a kind of extravagant ugliness that no longer communicates. Clearly, isolation is as deadly for the creative arts as for the social arts. Shakespeare is the most famous writer in history because, as a dramatist for the popular stage, he opened himself up to the masses, making his work accessible to people no matter what their education and taste. Artists who hole themselves up in their fortress lose a sense of proportion, their work communicating only to their small circle. Such art remains cornered and powerless.

Finally, since power is a human creation, it is inevitably increased by contact with other people. Instead of falling into the fortress mentality, view the world in the following manner: It is like a vast Versailles, with every room communicating with another. You need to be permeable, able to float in and out of different circles and mix with different types. That kind of mobility and social contact will protect you from plotters, who will be unable to keep secrets from you, and from your enemies, who will be unable to isolate you from your allies. Always on the move, you mix and mingle in the rooms of the palace, never sitting or settling in one place. No hunter can fix his aim on such a swift-moving creature.

Image: The Fortress. High up on the hill, the citadel becomes a symbol of all that is hateful in power and authority. The citizens of the town betray you to the first enemy that comes. Cut off from communication and intelligence, the citadel falls with ease.

Authority: A good and wise prince, desirous of maintaining that character, and to avoid giving the opportunity to his sons to become oppressive, will never build fortresses, so that they may place their reliance upon the good will of their subjects, and not upon the strength of citadels. (Niccolò Machiavelli, 1469-1527)

REVERSAL

It is hardly ever right and propitious to choose isolation. Without keeping an ear on what is happening in the streets, you will be unable to protect yourself. About the only thing that constant human contact cannot facilitate is thought. The weight of society’s pressure to conform, and the lack of distance from other people, can make it impossible to think clearly about what is going on around you. As a temporary recourse, then, isolation can help you to gain perspective. Many a serious thinker has been produced in prisons, where we have nothing to do but think. Machiavelli could write The Prince only once he found himself in exile and isolated on a farm far from the political intrigues of Florence.

The danger is, however, that this kind of isolation will sire all kinds of strange and perverted ideas. You may gain perspective on the larger picture, but you lose a sense of your own smallness and limitations. Also, the more isolated you are, the harder it is to break out of your isolation when you choose to—it sinks you deep into its quicksand without your noticing. If you need time to think, then, choose isolation only as a last resort, and only in small doses. Be careful to keep your way back into society open.

#showerthoughts #advice #self-improvement #self-help #spirituality

7 notes · View notes

release-info · 5 years

Photo

region in central Europe can be traced to Roman commander Julius Caesar, who referred to the unconquered area east of the Rhine as Germania, thus distinguishing it from Gaul (France), which he had conquered. The victory of the Germanic tribes in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest (AD 9) prevented annexation by the Roman Empire, although the Roman provinces of Germania Superior and Germania Inferior were established along the Rhine. Following the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Franks conquered the other West Germanic tribes. When the Frankish Empire was divided among Charles the Great’s heirs in 843, the eastern part became East Francia. In 962, Otto I became the first Holy Roman Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, the medieval German state. In the Late Middle Ages, the regional dukes, princes, and bishops gained power at the expense of the emperors. Martin Luther led the Protestant Reformation against the Catholic Church after 1517, as the northern states became Protestant, while the southern states remained Catholic. The two parts of the Holy Roman Empire clashed in the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648), which was ruinous to the twenty million civilians living in both parts. The Thirty Years’ War brought tremendous destruction to Germany; more than 1/4 of the population and 1/2 of the male population in the German states were killed by the catastrophic war. 1648 marked the effective end of the Holy Roman Empire and the beginning of the modern nation-state system, with Germany divided into numerous independent states, such as Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Austria and other states, which also controlled land outside of the area considered as “Germany”. After the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars from 1803–1815, feudalism fell away and liberalism and nationalism clashed with reaction. The German revolutions of 1848–49 failed. The Industrial Revolution modernized the German economy, led to the rapid growth of cities and to the emergence of the socialist movement in Germany. Prussia, with its capital Berlin, grew in power. German universities became world-class centers for science and humanities, while music and art flourished. The unification of Germany (excluding Austria and the German-speaking areas of Switzerland) was achieved under the leadership of the Chancellor Otto von Bismarck with the formation of the German Empire in 1871 which solved the Kleindeutsche Lösung, the small Germany solution (Germany without Austria), or Großdeutsche Lösung, the greater Germany solution (Germany with Austria), the former prevailing. The new Reichstag, an elected parliament, had only a limited role in the imperial government. Germany joined the other powers in colonial expansion in Africa and the Pacific. By 1900, Germany was the dominant power on the European continent and its rapidly expanding industry had surpassed Britain’s, while provoking it in a naval arms race. Germany led the Central Powers in World War I (1914–1918) against France, Great Britain, Russia and (by 1917) the United States. Defeated and partly occupied, Germany was forced to pay war reparations by the Treaty of Versailles and was stripped of its colonies as well as of home territory to be ceded to Czechoslovakia, Belgium, France and Poland. The German Revolution of 1918–19 put an end to the federal constitutional monarchy, which resulted in the establishment of the Weimar Republic, an unstable parliamentary democracy. In the early 1930s, the worldwide Great Depression hit Germany hard, as unemployment soared and people lost confidence in the government. In January 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany. The Nazi Party then began to eliminate all political opposition and consolidate its power. Hitler quickly established a totalitarian regime. Beginning in the late 1930s, Nazi Germany made increasingly aggressive territorial demands, threatening war if they were not met. First came the remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936, the annexing of Austria in the Anschluss and parts of Czechoslovakia with the Munich Agreement in 1938 (although in 1939 Hitler annexed further territory of Czechoslovakia). On 1 September 1939, Germany initiated World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland. After forming a pact with the Soviet Union in 1939, Hitler and Stalin divided Eastern Europe. After a “Phoney War” in spring 1940, the Germans swept Denmark and Norway, the Low Countries and France, giving Germany control of nearly all of Western Europe. Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941. Racism, especially antisemitism, was a central feature of the Nazi regime. In Germany, but predominantly in the German-occupied areas, the systematic genocide program known as The Holocaust killed 11 million including Jews, German dissidents, gipsies, disabled people, Poles, Romanies, Soviets (Russian and non-Russian), and others. In 1942, the German invasion of the Soviet Union faltered, and after the United States had entered the war, Britain became the base for massive Anglo-American bombings of German cities. Germany fought the war on multiple fronts through 1942–1944, however following the Allied invasion of Normandy (June 1944), the German Army was pushed back on all fronts until the final collapse in May 1945. Under occupation by the Allies, German territories were split up, Austria was again made a separate country, denazification took place, and the Cold War resulted in the division of the country into democratic West Germany and communist East Germany. Millions of ethnic Germans were deported or fled from Communist areas into West Germany, which experienced rapid economic expansion, and became the dominant economy in Western Europe. West Germany was rearmed in the 1950s under the auspices of NATO, but without access to nuclear weapons. The Franco-German friendship became the basis for the political integration of Western Europe in the European Union. In 1989, the Berlin Wall was destroyed, the Soviet Union collapsed and East Germany was reunited with West Germany in 1990. In 1998–1999, Germany was one of the founding countries of the eurozone. Germany remains one of the economic powerhouses of Europe, contributing about one-quarter of the eurozone’s annual gross domestic product. In the early 2010s, Germany played a critical role in trying to resolve the escalating euro crisis, especially with regard to Greece and other Southern European nations. In the middle of the decade, the country faced the European migrant crisis as the main receiver of asylum seekers from Syria and other troubled regions.discovery of the Homo heidelbergensis mandible in 1907 affirms archaic human presence in Germany by at least 600,000 years ago.[1] The oldest complete set of hunting weapons ever found anywhere in the world was excavated from a coal mine in Schöningen, Lower Saxony. Between 1994 and 1998, eight 380,000-year-old wooden javelins between 1.82 and 2.25 m (5.97 and 7.38 ft) in length were eventually unearthed.[2] In 1856 the fossilized bones of an extinct human species were salvaged from a limestone grotto in the Neander valley near Düsseldorf, North Rhine-Westphalia. The archaic nature of the fossils, now known to be around 40,000 years old, was recognized and the characteristics published in the first ever paleoanthropologic species description in 1858 by Hermann Schaaffhausen.[3] The species was named Homo neanderthalensis – Neanderthal man in 1864. The remains of Paleolithic early modern human occupation uncovered and documented in several caves in the Swabian Jura include various mammoth ivory sculptures that rank among the oldest uncontested works of art and several flutes, made of bird bone and mammoth ivory that are confirmed to be the oldest musical instruments ever found. The 40,000-year-old Löwenmensch figurine represents the oldest uncontested figurative work of art and the 35,000-year-old Venus of Hohle Fels has been asserted as the oldest uncontested object of human figurative art ever discovered.[4][5] [6][7] Germanic tribes, 750 BC – 768 AD Middle Ages Early modern Germany death of Frankish king Pepin the Short in 768, his oldest son “Charlemagne” (“Charles the Great”) consolidated his power over and expanded the Kingdom. Charlemagne ended 200 years of Royal Lombard rule with the Siege of Pavia, and in 774 he installed himself as King of the Lombards. Loyal Frankish nobles replaced the old Lombard aristocracy following a rebellion in 776.[46] The next 30 years of his reign were spent ruthlessly strengthening his power in Francia and on the conquest of the Slavs and Pannonian Avars in the east and all tribes, such as the Saxons and the Bavarians.[47][48] On Christmas Day, 800 AD, Charlemagne was crowned Imperator Romanorum (Emperor of the Romans) in Rome by Pope Leo III.[48] Fighting among Charlemagne’s three grandsons over the continuation of the custom of partible inheritance or the introduction of primogeniture caused the Carolingian empire to be partitioned into three parts by the Treaty of Verdun of 843.[49] Louis the German received the Eastern portion of the kingdom, East Francia, all lands east of the Rhine river and to the north of Italy. This encompassed the territories of the German stem duchies – Franks, Saxons, Swabians, and Bavarians – that were united in a federation under the first non-Frankish king Henry the Fowler, who ruled from 919 to 936.[50] The royal court permanently moved in between a series of strongholds, called Kaiserpfalzen, that developed into economic and cultural centers. Aachen Palace played a central role, as the local Palatine Chapel served as the official site for all royal coronation ceremonies during the entire Medieval period until 1531.[48][51] The Holy Roman Empire, maps The division of the Carolingian Empire by the Treaty of Verdun in 843 Territorial evolution of the Holy Roman Empire from 962 to 1806 The Holy Roman Empire at its greatest territorial extent under Hohenstaufen emperor Frederick II, 13th century http://bit.ly/2JRE8Gt

#IFTTT #RELEASE（リリース）みんなで作るニュースサイト！

0 notes