A mystery solved

A French article, "On a retrouvé le mythique 'diamant blue de la couronne'," solves the mystery of a beautiful blue diamond purchased by the Sun King, which was stolen in 1792. It has been identified as the "Hope" diamond in the Smithsonian Institute in the U.S.

Originally the diamond, known as the "Rose of Paris," was purchased by Louis XIV. It was stolen during the Revolution and re-sized so that it would not be recognized.

François Farges from the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris identified the connection to the Hope diamond after his team found the lead copy of the original diamond in the reserve of the museum. "I did not dare believe it. I did not sleep for one week. I woke every three hours to look at the photographs which I had taken. It was too beautiful to be true."

This sketch shows the outline of the original blue diamond, and the smaller Hope diamond within it.

17th Century authors site

In response to a call for writers who write about 17th century (see my post below), in no time at all a stunning new website has been created: Hoydens and Firebrands. This is a group website of seven authors who write about this fascinating century. (The site isn't official yet — it's still in "beta" — but stay tuned.)

I'm especially pleased because ever since moving from the populated (and popular) 18th century, I've felt somewhat on my own in this amazing century.

Mary Novik Video

I've interviewed Mary Novik before. Here is a video of her, explaining the inspiration for her wonderful novel Conceit.

Medieval Times

One has to go to strange places to find the relics of the past, these days. I went to Medieval Times yesterday, hoping to see jousting by men in armour. There were no men in armour, but I did see jousting, tilting at the ring and a number of other events that would have been enjoyed at the Court of the Sun King. The horses were spectacular — although the moves demonstrated were more to my period than to the medieval era (happily for me).

What was most worthwhile, from a research perspective — because, no doubt, this is a fantasy show — was the falconry event. I followed the Falcon Master out to the arena with the bird on his hand -- holding it much as many a noble man or woman would have done. In the arena the falcon was allowed to fly free, swooping over our heads before "capturing" her prey. These birds were sometimes treasured as much as (if not more than!) children.

A rare glimpse into the past

This is a rare video clip of Edwardian England (as posted on Jeri Westerson's blog, Getting Medieval). It's certainly not 17th century, but an amazing documentary. Pinch me!

It shows, as we've always suspected, that boys will be boys and girls will be girls, and that humans don't change, whatever the costume.

Fictional biography

I'm reading Madame de Maintenon; The Secret Wife of Louis XIV by Veronica Buckley. I've mentioned this book here before: Buckley was reported to have quoted extensively from a fictional diary of the King. I see no evidence of this yet, so presumably the error was caught before this edition went to press.

I'm finding it an engaging read in spite of the fact that Buckley is predisposed to think very poorly of the King and Colbert. I've previously found Maintenon boring, but this account makes her seem quite interesting. (Quite!) However, I can't really trust this author.

There are small errors in detail — at least I think they might be errors. Buckley mentions Maintenon shopping in boutiques along the Cours-la-Reine around 1660. I'm not sure that there were such things as fashion retail shops at that time. (I'd want to check.) She also mentions tipping a servant with a coin out of a purse. Again, I don't think purses existed as such at the time.

But these are small and unimportant. When we come to Louise de la Vallière, I know the account to be false. Regarding Athénaïs, for example:

"She's desperate to make me fall in love with her," [the King] said to Louise, and they laughed together...

Louis is reported to have said this to his brother, not to Louise (if indeed he said it at all). This account, however, makes for a better story; the so-called non-fictional account is in fact something of a fiction. A good fiction, parsed together out of scraps of fact. Here's another example:

Surprisingly, the normally bashful Louise had declined to shrink away into oblivion, returning from Paris to Saint-Germain without waiting for Louis' permission. "Madame de la Vallière is quite reestablished at court," Madame de Sévigné reported ... . "The King received her with tears of joy ... ."

The quote is correct, but refers to an entirely different episode, that of Louise being coerced to return to the court from a convent.

Examples such as these make me distrust all the other parts of this otherwise delicious biography. When I record notes from this book, I will also note that the source is unreliable.

(Afternote: Gary McCollim, a Sun King scholar, has two excellent posts critiquing the Buckley biography: here, and here.)

Is the 17th century "unpopular"?

This morning author Alison Stuart posted a request on a historic fiction list for authors writing about the 17th century to contact her. "Nothing sinister," she added. "I am just keen to explore an idea about pooling resources to lift the reading public's interest in this fascinating (but 'unpopular') period of history."

Is the 17th century unpopular?

I think so. The Historical Novel Society puts out a review publication, grouping novels by era. The 16th century invariably has a long listing, as well as the 18th and 19th, but the list of novels set in the 17th is noticably short — rarely more than a handful.

Perhaps the question should be: Why is the 17th century unpopular?

I have a theory about this: England in the 17th century was a dire and gloomy place to be (devastating Plague, the Great Fire). Perhaps this has put people off. Curiously, the experience of the 17th century in France was quite different, at least in the second half of the century, when French culture flowered and flourished during the reign of the Sun King.

It is also a period without "a handle": What do we call it? Late Renaissance? Early Modern? It seems to be a period in-between ... and yet this is what makes it so fascinating, in my view.