Форум » Журнал "Всякая всячина" » Король-Солнце, человек и монарх 2 » Ответить
Король-Солнце, человек и монарх 2
allitera: Начало темы здесь.
Olga: Leja пишет: Но ведь те,кому нравится Луи, видят в нем другое Я смотрела с точки зрения поклонников Пейрака, который уверенны, что лучше всех знают что написал автор. А по их мнению король таков.
Daria: allitera пишет: Ну от кого бы ожидала такого ответа, но точно не от тебя. Кать, ну ты же знаешь мое отношение к королю. :) Оно исполнено интереса и искреннего уважения. Но он никогда не цеплял мое воображение сам по себе, вне всего им созданного. Уж что есть, то есть. Спасибо Шандернагор, она мне помогла это наконец сформулировать.
allitera: Daria пишет: Кать, ну ты же знаешь мое отношение к королю. :) Оно исполнено интереса и искреннего уважения. Но он никогда не цеплял мое воображение сам по себе, вне всего им созданного. Да при чем ту воображение. Мне казалось, что ты все-таки знаешь его чуточку лучше. А ты прямо его лишаешь того, что имеет любой человек - индивидуальности. А она у него яркая. Вне зависимости - цепляет она тебя или нет, но она же есть.
Daria: allitera пишет: А ты прямо его лишаешь того, что имеет любой человек - индивидуальности. А она у него яркая. Вне зависимости - цепляет она тебя или нет, но она же есть. Да я не в том смысле. Вероятно, мы несколько по-разному понимаем понятие индивидуальности. :)
allitera: Daria пишет: Да я не в том смысле. Вероятно, мы несколько по-разному понимаем понятие индивидуальности. :) для меня индивидуальность - это единство неповторимых личностных свойств конкретного человека. Это вроде конкретное определние. А что ты имела ввиду?
zoreana: Снова обращаюсь к вам. Где можно узнать о подписании договора Людовика 14 и Исмаила Муллея.
Leja: Так девочки, а когда Анж попала в гарем к Исмаилу? Написано,что он пришел к власти в 1672,но получается это был 1671 год,ведь конец 3 тома 1670
Мария-Антуанетта: Leja пишет: Написано,что он пришел к власти в 1672,но получается это был 1671 год,ведь конец 3 тома 1670 А если учесть, что Пейрак и того раньше с ним познакомился... то вот тебе и ляп!
Leja: Мария-Антуанетта пишет: А если учесть, что Пейрак и того раньше с ним познакомился... А Пейрак с ним в положении правителя познакомился?
Мария-Антуанетта: Leja пишет: А Пейрак с ним в положении правителя познакомился? По моему да. он как раз только стал правителем и Пейрак с ним стал"работать". [img src=/gif/smk/sm38.gif]
zoreana: Leja пишет: Так девочки, а когда Анж попала в гарем к Исмаилу? Написано,что он пришел к власти в 1672,но получается это был 1671 год,ведь конец 3 тома 1670 Вот и я удивилась. Побег из Гарема 1671год. Но это художественная литература можно +-5 лет
Leja: Зореана вы английский знаете? Вот ссылка,кстати забавно,что Исмаил предлагал Луи принять протестантизм,ктоторый он считал меньшим злом чем католицизм. А в идеале конечно ислам Книга
Leja: hall where the marble tomb of Moulay Ismail lies between two clocks sent as gifts by King Louis XIV. Интересно,правда?
allitera: Leja пишет: hall where the marble tomb of Moulay Ismail lies between two clocks sent as gifts by King Louis XIV. Недавно в какой - то передаче видела эту могилу с часами. Часы напольные просто стоят в той же комнате.
Leja: Нашла вот такую аннотацию к Блюшу,какие мысли? Louis XIV. By Francois Bluche. Translated by Mark Greengrass. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 1990. xvi + 702 pp. £30. ISBN 0 631 16003 5. For Francois Bluche there is no room for compromise. Louis XIV was a great king and, as he assures us in the first line of his prologue, it could not have been otherwise because 'Voltaire, a great man, had no difficulty in identifying the greatness in Louis XIV.' Throughout the 700 stylish and often entertaining pages that follow, Bluche maintains a vigorous and, despite his pleas to the contrary, polemical defence of his hero. He is a polished writer, and it is a tribute to Mark Greengrass that the translation is worthy of a book that has received so many plaudits in France. Despite his evident adulation of Louis, Bluche is at his strongest when developing the character of the monarch. Not surprisingly, the king is presented in a favourable light in his many incarnations as warrior, diplomat or architect of Versailles, but equally impressive is the attempt to describe the man behind the royal mask. The descriptions of Louis XIV's great courage and stoicism in the face of the tortures inflicted by his doctors, and the dignity he displayed in overcoming the terrible grief and losses suffered by the royal family in the final years of his reign, all have the ring of truth about them. Other positive aspects of the king's character are also emphasized, such as his personal kindness and indulgences (Fouquet apart) to those who served him, or the pleasure he gave and received through his patronage of the arts - an area where his own expertise was far from negligible. In examining these themes, Bluche shows his skill as a biographer by revealing his subject in a flattering, but human, light, something which must go a long way towards explaining the popularity of his work with the public and critics in France. However, a brief glance at the bibliography, and the short essay that the translator felt it necessary to append, suggests that the reviews may be less charitable elsewhere. Bluche appears to have ignored the contributions of British or American scholars to the historiography of the region. That is of course perfectly legitimate given that few of them have been translated into French, but it is still rather disappointing not to see some sort of debate engaged, especially if one considers a number of Bluche's more controversial opinions. Although his view of Louis XIV's government is in no sense based upon the 'Sun-king' of popular legend, it remains, nevertheless, open to accusations of anachronistic thinking. Louis and his ministers, notably Colbert, are described as exponents of rational, pragmatic government, seeking reform through centralization and innovation. Thus, it was Louis XIV who would 'provide a model for the enlightened despots of the next century' (pp. 136-7). The evidence to support such an assertion is to say the least weak, and it seems likely that Frederick II of Prussia or Joseph II of Austria owed more to the cameralism of German universities than they did to French influences. Yet, this kind of bold assertion based upon insufficient evidence is typical of the book, and it is hardly surprising to read that the reign saw the formation of a more modern administrative monarchy, or that 'after thirty-four years, Louis had remoulded French society' (p. 503). Few would deny that in the course of the seventeenth century the power of government expanded, but the means by which that transformation was effected remains open to debate. Bluche has an instinctive belief that the state was becoming more bureaucratic, exercising at the same time a modernizing influence upon French society. The undoubted achievements of the reign, not least in mobilizing men and resources between 1688 and 1715, bears testimony to greater efficiency, but much of that success was the result of careful use of very traditional policies. In a revealing phrase, Bluche states that 'the intendants had turned their backs on the old institutional structures and had chosen to serve a modern state' (p. 138). Whether they would have seen matters in those terms is doubtful; rather than an abstract state they probably thought they were serving a very personal monarch - the same man whose character is deemed so important elsewhere in the book. The emphasis upon modernization and change is also exaggerated because this is a book written exclusively from the perspective of the king and his ministers at the centre. Bluche himself states that it was easier for Louis XIV to 'revoke the edict of Nantes than to send an intendant to Rennes' (p. 129), but he fails to explore the implications of that fact on the nature of the relationship between the government and the provinces. It is a pity because if the works of scholars such as William Beik or Roger Mettam are to be believed, provincials were frequently thinking and behaving in ways which both Louis XIV and Bluche would have found disturbing. As for the intendants, far from turning their backs on traditional institutions, they spent the majority of their time trying to establish a harmonious working relationship with such bodies as the Parlements, provincial estates or episcopate. In achieving this aim, one of their most potent weapons was patronage, a subject which in the context of the government Bluche totally ignores. He is on firmer ground when he tackles the more controversial subject of religion, and specifically the revocation of the edict of Nantes. With admirable gusto, Bluche attacks what he sees as anachronistic hand-wringing over the fate of French Protestants. Certainly, he has a good point to make. The late seventeenth century was not particularly tolerant, as English Catholics, or Protestants in the Habsburg lands, could testify. We need, therefore, to be careful not to examine the revocation through modern eyes, and Bluche argues convincingly that amongst French Catholics of all social backgrounds the proscription of the religion pretendue reformee was welcomed enthusiastically. It is a telling point, and one that has been endorsed by Beik's study of Languedoc, but Bluche subsequently pushes his argument into deeper waters by arguing that the revocation had as many positive as negative effects. The harmful consequences of the flight of French Protestants scarcely need rehearsing here, but what of the possible benefit? Some of the gains identified by Bluche, including the belief that by persecuting heretics the king returned to the traditional principles of French law and thus ceased to be in breach of his coronation oath, seem rather spurious. The remainder of his argument is based upon the idea that the revocation forged a new religious and national unity, providing the state with the necessary strength to survive the last two wars of the reign. Moreover, the monarchy supposedly acquired a new image of Catholic orthodoxy which was instrumental in winning the loyalty of recently conquered territories such as Franche-Comte, and of the Spanish subjects inherited by Philip V. Here again, Bluche has gone too far. His aim is to prove the existence of an alliance of 'throne, altar and people' (p. 414), an extremely unlikely combination even in 1709. Indeed, if such an alliance existed, the chances are that it was formed more by the threat of an Allied invasion led by Marlborough and Eugene, than by the persecution of Huguenots a generation before. As this example shows, Bluche has written a passionate and controversial book, but it is certainly not the definitive account of the reign of Louis XIV.
полная версия страницы