Daily Blague

Um. Bonaparte wasn't great? He almost forced the entire western world to think on his terms, and on French terms. I wish it weren't Monday morning and I could reply at greater length.

You also said "modern French history." I'm being nitpicky, I know, but Louis wasnt exactly modern, was he? If we were to consider him modern, why not allow Henri IV or Richelieu into the discussion? ;)

I love the Blague. never change.

PS, do not pre-judge me because of my pre-existing blog handle. I am not Bonapartist, just a minor student of French history and culture who needed a handle.

Sam -

In the absence of an address, I'll reply to you on the site.

Napoleon was not French. He was very much an outsider who utilized certain aspects of French civlization (order, for the most part) while trying to replace others (as with the idea of empire, very much not a French notion). And he was more interested in winning than in glory. There's a big difference.

Henri IV and Richelieu are pre-modern. Louis is modern precisely because he could say, "L'état, c'est moi." He created a role that has been taken over by democratic governments - but not supplanted.

Hope to hear from you again soon!

I have read about and studied the great king for years (witness my log-in acronym).

It is impossible to understand a figure so complex, who's reach touches so many aspects of modern life, without intense study. How we view kingship, religion and its toleration or lack thereof, nationhood, professionalism, bureaucracy, public life, elegance, luxury and so many other aspects of our lives were defined, perfected or invented by this man and the legion of greats he fostered. It is precisely because he was the last great "god/king" and the the first truly modern head of state that people not deeply read up on the man and his time have difficulty understanding his stature without falling back on easy catch phrases and shorthand; which, by their incomplete nature, diminish the king and his effects on history to this day.

Just to note: The same man who revoked the Edict of Nantes by the Edict of Fontainbleau was also the man who fostered the well-being of Jews in France's early colonies. Because the Jews did not constitute a state within a state, as did the Protestants, was the real reason to persecute the one group while leaving alone, or even actually fostering the other. Coming of age after the ructions of the religious wars involving the Protestants, we can understand, if not always agree with, the king's response to the perceived threat. Hindsight and application of modern mores may help us understand how to proceed in our own lives but they do little justice to those who do not have our benefit of being able to look back. Besides, a civilization which has left a legacy of genocide and mass destruction has lost the right to point a finger at the comparatively benign mistakes of former ages.

Louis XIV's wars were ruinous, but they did serve to establish and settle, once and for all, France's natural boundaries. One of the more ruinous wars, The War of the Spanish Succession, was forced upon him, after he first tried desperately to find a diplomatic solution, by a vindictive Europe and the Realpolitik of having to fight to prevent France's being pincered by deadly Hapsburg regimes. It is of note that this absolute monarch actually went to the people of France, via the use of broadsides and sermons from the pulpits of the realm's churches, to plead the justice of his case. The response was overwhelmingly in favor of continuing the ruinous war; no small achievement in and of itself.

One might argue that he doomed his dynasty to ruin but one might also note that he never expected the next king to be slavishly tied to his rules, but would expect that the new king would tailor the kingship to his own measure as Louis XIV so effectively did for himself. One might do better to wonder how Louis XV would have fared had hehis father and mother, the Duc de Bourbon and Marie Adelaide of Savoy, to cannily guide him in his youth as the great king had his own mother, Anne of Austria, and his surrogate father, Cardinal Mazarin, to help guide him through his own formative years. One wonders if France would still have a monarchy now, or even have invented yet another idea of "kingship", tempered to modern times. As it is, Louis XIV has given France an identity and a culture which will hold up against all onslaughts, including that all consuming monster, American pop culture.

"Gloire", a word which encompasses personal integrity, manners and a just life; a legacy of achievement not merely defined by military victories. Napoleon was an aggrandizer, Louis XIV was a creator. Let that be the Great King's true claim to "gloire".