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.
то вот тебе и ляп! 
- участник сейчас на форуме
- участник вне форума