cahn

I'm trying to use my other account at least occasionally so I posted about my Yuletide gifts there, including the salon-relevant 12k fic that features Fritz, Heinrich, Voltaire, Fredersdorf, Saint Germain, Caroline Daum (Fredersdorf's wife), and Groundhog Day tropes! (Don't need to know canon.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

selenak

Speaking of Louis' wars, here's Richelieu's take on Philippe d'Orleans the Gay:

Monsieur ( as the brother of Louis XIV. was at that time called ) fought with a courage and presence of mind that was never expected from so effeminate a prince. There could not be a stronger proof that valor is not
incompatible with delicacy. This prince , who frequently used to go dressed like a woman , and who had the same inclinations, behaved on this occasion like a general and a soldier. It is said that the king was jealous of the reputation he acquired . He took very little notice of the victory he had gained , and did not so much as go to see the field of battle , though he was near by. Some of the staff of the duke of Orleans , who were more discerning than the rest, prophesied to him then that he would never again have the command of an army, and their predictions were verified.

(Voltaire doesn't discuss the question of Monsieur's first wife, Minette, and her death until the anecdote section in the second volume. Like most modern historians, he thinks that while the marriage was awful, Minette did not die of poison, but that it wasn't surprising there were rumors galore, between her state of marriage and the later Affair of the Poisons making everyone think "Poison!" about any death at the court. Also, he points out that the Chevalier de Lorraine, aka the most likely suspect after Philippe himself, was at that point in exile in Italy and would have had to organize it from afar and with weeks or months of delay.)

Louis XIV may have treated his Huguenots badly, but that doesn't mean he was cool with the Pope. At that point, Innocent XI wanted to get rid of two very costly privileges which envoys enjoyed - they could extend the right of franchise and asylum through a great distance (i.e. if someone had killed someone, they just could cry "diplomatic immunity! I work for envoy X!"), and anything brought into Rome under the name of an envoy couldln't be taxed. This was hell on the Roman economy and state of law.

At lenght Pope Innocent XI. prevailed ont he emperor, he kings of Spain and Poland , and on the new king of England, James II, who was Catholic, to give up these odious privileges. The nuncio Ranucci proposed to Louis to concur with these princes in restoring the peace and good order of Rome; but Louis, who in his heart hated the pope, returned for answer that he hever regulated his conduct by the example of others, who rather ought himself to serve as an example ot them.

Louis then sends the Marquis de Lavardin as an ambassasdor with 400 marine guards, hte same number of volunteer officers, and two hundred men in livery to make his entrance and basically make Rome into a French garnison.

All that Innocent XI. could do was to attack the Marquis de Lavardin with the worn-out weapon of excommuinication, a weapon which is now as little regarded in Rome as elsewhere.

At this rate, Louis shows an almost Fritzian eagerness to collect enemies, though since he spends French money liberally in the HRE, he also has lots of client supporters among the princes Elector. (Including the Great Elector of Brandenburg, until Louis kicks the Huguenots out.) And then there's James II.

James II., who succeded his brohter, Charles II, was a Catholic; but Charles did not consent to become a Catholic till toward the latter part of his life, and then only out of compliance with his mistresses and his brother. In fact, he acknowledged no other religion than that of pure deism. HIs perfect indifference in those points which divide mankind in thier disputations had contributed not a little to render his reign peacable among the English. James, on the contrary, attached by strong persuasion to the Roman Catholic religion in his youth, joined to his belief the spirit of party and seal. Had he been a Mahometan, or of the religion of Confucius, the ENglish would never have disturbed his reign; but he formed a design to estalibhs the Roman Catholic religion in his kingdom, which was looked upon witht he utmost horror by these republican royalists as a religion of slavery.

James II reigns, pisses off everyone, gets dethroned by William the ultra competent and Mary, and ends up in France with cousin Louis as a generous host.

Never did monarch appear so grand as Louis on this occasion , and James seemed as mean . Those of the court and city , by whose opinions the reputations of men are decided , conceived very little esteem for him .
He saw nobody but Jesuits .

Voltaire: Not a Jacobite. He'll grant there was some sympathy for James in France, and much hatred for William:

Most of the Parisians, who were born under the reign of Louis , and moulded to despotic sway , looked upon a king at that time as a demigod, and a usurper as a sacrilegious monster . The common people , who had seen James going every day to mass, detested William as a heretic . The idea of a son- in - law and a daughter, Protestants, driving their father, a Catholic , from his throne, and reigning in his stead , together with that
of an enemy to their king, transported the Parisians to a degree of fury ; but prudent people were of a more moderate way of thinking.

Because William is competent, people!

On to the Scouring of the Shire, err, the sacking of the Palatinate.

The king had resolved to make a desert of the Palatinate as soon as those towns were taken. His design in this was rather to cut off all means of subsistence from the enemy, than to take vengeance on the elector, whose only crime was that of having done his duty in joining with the rest of Germany against France. An order came to the army from theking, signed Louvois, to reduce the whole country to ashes. T'he French generals were then obliged to obey; and though it was in the very midst of winter, casued notice to be sent to the inhabitants of all these flourishing towns, and the villages round about, and to the masters of above fifty castles, to quit their dwellings; that they were going to destroy everything with fire and sowrd. Upon this dreaful summons, men, women, old people, and children, hurried out in the utmost haste; some of whom wandered up and down in the fields, and the rest took refuge in neighboring co9untries, while the soldiery, who always exceeds commands of rigor, and selfdom or never execute those of clemency, burned and pillaged their country. They began with Mannheim, the residence of the electors, whose residence they levelled to thegroun d, as well as the private houses of the citizens; broke open their very tombs, thinking to satisfy their avarice with the immense treasures they expected to find there, and scattered their ashes abroad. This was the second time that this beautiful country had been laid waste by Louis' orders; but the burning of two cities and twenty villages by Turenne was but a spark in comparison to this conflagration. All Europe was struck with horror at this action. The very officers who executed it were ashamed of being the instruments of such cruelty. The blame was thrown on the marquis of Louvois, who had contracted that insensibility of heart which arises from a long administration. He was certainly the person who advised this proceeding; but Louis had it in his power to reject or follow his counsel. Had the king been a witness to this spectacle, he would have gone in person to extinguish the flames. From his palace in Versailles, where he was surrounded by pleasures, he signed the destruction of a whole country, because he there behold only his own glory and the fatal right of conquest in the order he gave; but had he been nearer to the spot, he would have seen all the horror of it. The antions, who till then had only blamed his ambition, and admired his other qualifications, now cried out against his cruelty.(...)

This is a truly remarkable paragraph to be written by an 18th century French author about a 17th century French national icon and his wars. Especially re: the behavior of a French army in a minor German realm. Keep also in mind that the book as a whole isn't anti Louis XIV - the "had he been there, he'd have stopped it" may be overly optimistic, but this is how Voltaire in general portrays Louis, as proud and ambitious but not without feeling. Still, I can't think of something comparable written pre Voltaire or contemporarily to Voltaire (until Diderot at least) in a book meant for publication. I mean, Hervey may bitch about the royal family and some of the English politicis in his memoirs, but he's writing for a future audience, to be read after his death. Other contemporary authors decry war crimes by OTHER nations, not their own.

Also remarkable: Voltaire is aware of global consequences and is not a fan of colonialism, to put it mildly:

One of the effects of human industry and fury, of these two centuries past, has been that of not confining the havoc of war to our own continent of Europe. We drain ourselves of men and money to carry destruction against each other in Asia and America. The INdians, whom we have compelled by force or artifice to admit our settlements among them, and the Americans, from whom we have wrested their continent, after having dyed itwith their b lood, look upon us as the foes of humankind, who came from the farthest part of the globe to butcher them, and afterward to destroy one another.

This is said in the context of the Dutch outmanouvring Louis in the East Indies, but he clearly means it for his own mid 18th century present as well.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Speaking of Louis' wars, here's Richelieu's take on Philippe d'Orleans the Gay:

Voltaire's take?

At that point, Innocent XI wanted to get rid of two very costly privileges which envoys enjoyed - they could extend the right of franchise and asylum through a great distance (i.e. if someone had killed someone, they just could cry "diplomatic immunity! I work for envoy X!"), and anything brought into Rome under the name of an envoy couldln't be taxed.

Interesting, I remember the taxation part (envoys were basically smugglers with a loophole) but thought diplomatic immunity came later. Wikipedia says we're both right: Britain first granted diplomatic immunity in 1709 due to an incident I'm familiar with from my Whitworth reading (he was tangentially involved), but the concept was evolving in the 17th century in Western Europe and gradually taking the form that we know. Ah, yes, even the Whitworth bio, which says that the 1709 act was very significant to the development of diplomatic immunity, says that "The quesetion of the immunity of diplomats, and their subordinates, from civil and criminal proceedings had been a matter of concern from the seventeenth century."

Voltaire: Not a Jacobite.

I feel like I've seen at least one beautifully snarky comment from him, but alas! I'm blanking. Will update if I think of it.

Also remarkable: Voltaire is aware of global consequences and is not a fan of colonialism, to put it mildly

A hundred years later, Macaulay: If colonialism meant Europeans were bringing wars to other continents, it was all Fritz's fault! You know, the guy without any colonies. Definitely no responsibility falls on us Brits!

From:

selenak

Voltaire's take?

Indeed. I just saw I substituted "Richelieu" for "Voltaire" more than once. Neither of them would be amused. :)

"The quesetion of the immunity of diplomats, and their subordinates, from civil and criminal proceedings had been a matter of concern from the seventeenth century."

Voltaire presents is specifically in the Roman context and doesn't say it happened this way anywhere else. I do know that even a century later, when Goethe and several other German writers were there, Rome the city was infamous for the way criminals could get away with just about every crime, though in the 18th century this isn't blamed on envoys extending diplomatic immunity but on the criminals claiming church sanctuary.

Anyway, Louis saying that he doesn't follow other examples, everyone else should follow his example is just about the most Louis XIV statement ever, which was my main reason for including the story.

A hundred years later, Macaulay: If colonialism meant Europeans were bringing wars to other continents, it was all Fritz's fault! You know, the guy without any colonies. Definitely no responsibility falls on us Brits!

Talk about things developing backwards.:) More seriously, the relative lack of national bias and corresponding ability to see how everyone else is impacted is one of the qualities Orieux points out as a Voltairian virtue. and he does say even in the age of the Enlightenment, it's more the exception than the rule. I would add that of course the last third of the 18th century, after Voltaire's death, gives birth not just to revolutions but in the long term modern style nationalism, and so it's no wonder that late 19th century man (and politician) Macauly pulls something like this.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Indeed. I just saw I substituted "Richelieu" for "Voltaire" more than once. Neither of them would be amused. :)

Whereas we are greatly amused! :D

Voltaire presents is specifically in the Roman context and doesn't say it happened this way anywhere else.

Yeah, fair, I also have this impression of Rome.

Anyway, Louis saying that he doesn't follow other examples, everyone else should follow his example is just about the most Louis XIV statement ever, which was my main reason for including the story.

This is very true! It reminds me of the story I shared a while back:

Riva was almost in tears as he said that the good king had thought to provide him not only with a horse but an extra pair of riding boots. From Lauzun's perspective, on the other hand, it was just like James II to have nothing better to do at a time like this. Since James's cousin Louis XIV was of an entirely different caliber. He went walking in the rain, while being the only one allowed to wear a hat, because of his rank, and he asked his companions if it wasn't unpleasant, having to go without a hat in the rain. And precisely because of that attitude, France was now the greatest power in Europe.

It's good to be the (Sun) King.

long term modern style nationalism, and so it's no wonder that late 19th century man (and politician) Macauly pulls something like this.

Yes, indeed.

From:

cahn

Like most modern historians, he thinks that while the marriage was awful, Minette did not die of poison, but that it wasn't surprising there were rumors galore

Ah, neat.

All that Innocent XI. could do was to attack the Marquis de Lavardin with the worn-out weapon of excommuinication, a weapon which is now as little regarded in Rome as elsewhere.

Ha! Well, that is a very Voltaire kind of phrasing!

but prudent people were of a more moderate way of thinking.

Because William is competent, people!

That's right! :)

This is a truly remarkable paragraph to be written by an 18th century French author about a 17th century French national icon and his wars.

Ah, that's really cool. Go Voltaire!

Also remarkable: Voltaire is aware of global consequences and is not a fan of colonialism, to put it mildly:

<3

From:

selenak

It's not that Voltaire doesn't have his share of biases and contradictions (see also: "Fritz, why don't you join Catherine and Joseph on an anti-Turkish crusade?"), but "taking other people's territories, exploiting them, and then exporting wars to them = bad!" is not an equation I see many other people in the 18th century draw about their own nation. (You can always find people going on about how competing country X' barbarisms.) It's things like these that make his champion-of-Enlightenment moniker earned.