The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

The festival night continues, although some of the times don't seem to add up, it seems like it's 2 am, then goes back to 1 am. At one point a morning breeze was mentioned but it's clearly still night. This section is still about gossip, love affairs and court intrigue. However, we do get to see Aramis along with Fouquet. He is so well informed that he gets the update about La Valliere only hours after it happens. I was amused by the fact that a letter comes from de Wardes with great new gossip, which turns out to be several steps behind the time. The interplay between Aramis, Louis, Fouquet and Colbert is a darker current under all the frivolity of the night.

So everyone except Raoul seems to know of Louise's adoration. It does make sense that she cared for Raoul since childhood, knowing few other men, but now she falls for someone sophisticated and glamorous. I don't know how the English translation is but in French Louise is referred to as "sage", which means good, but also for a girl, a virgin. This is something rare at court.

I was a bit annoyed and confused by the whole Manicamp/Malicorne/Montalais interlude and the mysterious people at the inn. This seems like the kind of conference where Aramis would show up, but so far we don't see him.

What are your feelings on this long night of partying? Apparently some of it comes from journals and letters of the time, although undoubtedly all this didn't happen in one night.

Robin, I also had some timing issues with these chapters. In the end I explained it though that these are 2 smaller stories. It is around 01:00AM when Saint-Aignan runs into Fouquet. Then the story is told about Fouquet which lasts on until 02:00AM and then we return to Saint-Aignan and what happened to him starting at 01:00 AM. It does definitely not match when you put your stopwatch next to this, but it was a quick way for me to explain this and not getting more irritated about the timeline ( I have been already so annoyed about the changing ages of the protagonists in these books ;-) ).

I see Louise as a very innocent country girl who still holds her virtue and innocence dear. But, as you say, Robin, this is something rare at court and it might only be a question of time until it is exploited. In my edition it was I think Louis XIV or maybe Saint-Aignan (I cannot quite remember) who asked about her being a virgin.
As mentioned, I know what at least happened in real life so I will keep my mouth shut/ my hands off the keyboard to not say too much.

I also felt quite confused about this Manicamp/ Malicorne episode and the scenes at the Peacock Inn. The scenes at the Peacock Inn seemed like a meeting of all kinds of mysterious people, almost like in e.g. Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones where people in disguise meet in dubious inns (which - of course - the authors of those novels might have taken from Dumas). And in that respect Aramis seems to have his "little birds" / spies everywhere. Maybe this part is to bring us back in a more adventurous area after all the romance and court intrigues and all the feasting and partying. I am really amazed about the amounts of money being spent - even if I am not quite sure how much a louis or livres or pistoles was worth in reality - but we are talking about millions - I was actually thinking the same when I saw the SpaceX mission over the weekend. Even if that is all very exciting, but could money not be spent in a more useful way? There was and is enough suffering to be taken care of.
I wonder whether Dumas wanted to point this out. As you, Robin, mention this was based on actual journals. Is this his way to criticize Louis XIV and his excessive behavior? But if he meant it that way why is there so few evidence of the suffering of the people? The only "suffering" we have seen in these books was the running out of money of the Musketeers and their servants when drinking, gambling, etc. It is not like Les Miserables in which the poor and their suffering are in the focus.

I wonder whether this mysterious meeting has to do with an attempt of overthrowing the king due to his excessive expenditure while the people are suffering, a little of what will happen 128 years after these scenes.

Good point, there seems to be little concern by Dumas for the lower classes, the hungry, etc. Even during the Fronde, that was more a revolt by nobles and bourgeois (like Planchet), although they enlisted poor people who had plenty of grievances. In this part, Dumas seems to want us to enjoy the ballet, fireworks, and all the other frivolities, and only to be concerned for Aramis and Fouquet who have to keep coming up with the financing. There is some mention of how the money comes from taxes, but the really poor people would have had so little that it would have been hard to get much from them.

And I see you're right about the 1am-2am discrepancy, there are multiple stories going on at the same time.

I’m finally caught up. 🙌
It really does seem like no one ever sleeps in Fontainebleau. So much gossip and plotting. Everyone is getting followed and conversations are always overheard. Can’t anyone hide and whisper?

Montalais and Malicorn decide to look out for themselves and use the information they have to secure a better position at court. Surprisingly, they are aware that he king is using Louise as a screen. They also believe that Raoul would kill her or himself if he found out. I would not have guessed that given his tame and boring personality.

It’s interesting that the king 🤴 conceals the fact that he prevented Louise and Raoul’s engagement. Maybe because he feels bad or because he doesn’t want to look bad.

I wonder how well Fouquet knows Aramis. He tells the king that Aramis didn’t start his education early enough. We know that’s not true from the first book.

Hedi, your comment about Aramis and his ‘little birds’ (informants) made me smile 😊 because it reminded me of Varys from Game of Thrones.

It reminded me of Varys - that is why I used that term as well. 😉😊