What do you think?
Rate this book
Reputations
Louis XVI: The Silent King
Louis XVI was at the center of the French Revolution, one of the major turning points in world history, but little is known about him. He is often portrayed only as the weak, lazy, and treasonous king dominated by Marie-Antoinette. This new investigation by John Hardman, a leading expert on the French Revolution, challenges this stereotype. Drawing on new evidence from Louis XVI's letters and from a large body of new research, Hardman provides the first detailed reconstruction of the king's political thought and sheds new light on the king's character and personality.
224 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
1 person is currently reading
39 people want to read
About the author
John Hardman
15 books11 followersJohn Hardman is one of the world’s leading experts on the French Revolution and the author of several well-regarded books on the subject. He was formerly lecturer in modern history at the University of Edinburgh.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
April 12, 2025
"The first moments of the reign of Louis XVI... seemed to promise to a kingdom crushed by two very long and catastrophic reigns, a totally unexpected return to happiness. There is no kind of happiness that the French nation is not entitled to expect from a prince filled with goodness, justice, love and peace, of contempt for luxury, surrounded by enlightened and virtuous ministers."
This is how the philosopher Holbach greeted the beginning of Louis XVI's reign. This stylized passage encapsulates high, probably too high, expectations that many contemporaries had of the young king.
France was tired of the long reign of Louis XV (the new monarch's grandfather) and welcomed his successor with genuine enthusiasm.
The elevated expectations carried with them the seeds of future disappointment.
The central subject of this book, Louis de Bourbon, had many facets.
The king, whose life was to be cut short in his thirty-ninth year, had to try on several titles that reflected both the personal life of the king and the complex fate of the country at a time of socio-economic crisis and the outbreak of revolution.
At birth, the boy received the title of Duke of Berry
On the death of his father, the dauphin of France
On the death of Louis XV (his grandfather) King of France and Navarre
Before the Revolution, Louis the Beneficent
In August 1789, by the decree of the constituent assembly, declared Louis the Restorer of French liberty
By the constitution of 1791, King of the French
By the minority of the legislative assembly in the month of June 1792, Monsieur Veto
In August of the same year, Louis Capet, Louis the traitor, and Louis the last.
This book is not, strictly speaking, a biography of the king. John Hardman dedicated another book to Louis's life.
Here, he offers an analysis of the reputations attributed to Louis by his contemporaries and later biographers. The author examines the images of the last king of the Old Regime (l'Ancien Régime) that have survived and persisted in the collective historical consciousness. He focuses on the representations that have left the most serious mark on historiography and comments on them. To illustrate Louis's various reputations, Hardman chooses to rely on biographers who were closest to the years of the king's life. He often cites the testimony of J.-L. Soulavie, who, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, had the unique opportunity to work with Louis's papers before most of them were dispersed and lost. Despite the absence of many of the originals, the documents cited by Sulavi are largely considered authentic.
The book contains thirteen chapters, twelve of which shed light on specific stages of the king's life, while the final chapter presents three different views of the reign and the author's conclusion. Each of these stages is important, and Louis at the beginning and the middle of his reign is not Louis in his later years, as he is best remembered by posterity.
The author looks to explain some of Louis' decisions and come closer to understanding his character, neither justifying nor condemning.
When Louis came to the throne, he took his responsibilities seriously and meant to make life better for his people. He was aware that reforms were necessary. First and foremost, a regressive tax system had to be made less unfair and stop placing the main burden on the Third Estate (le tiers état), which represented the bulk of French society. However, these reforms became the bone of contention that eventually led to the convening of the States General (not convened since 1614), which triggered the beginning of the Revolution. The first major political decision of the new sovereign was the return from exile of the disgraced parliaments, especially the Parliament of Paris, which had been dispersed during the previous reign. Many scholars believe that this was a mistake that not only limited the monarchy's room for maneuver but also became a serious obstacle on the road to change. However, such a step was actively lobbied for by Minister Maurepas (Louis's chief minister until 1780), and Louis thus sought to maintain his popularity with the people, who generally welcomed the decision. The king was convinced that he must by all means gain and retain popularity in the masses. At the same time, another financial crisis was brewing in the country... The author describes the successive ministers and Louis's attempts to carry out vital reforms with their help.
Hardman rightly notes the king's desire to solve the problem but also exposes his weakness in the face of the united opposition of the royal court, the parliaments, and his own wife. Louis lacked the political will to consistently oppose those who surrounded him in the golden cage of Versailles.
The book discusses foreign policy, which was considered "the principal metier of the kings." Louis XVI seems to have paid much attention to it.
His reign coincided with a war of the North American colonies for independence from the British crown. Britain was a country that had recently inflicted an ignominious defeat on France in the Seven Years' War.
Louis XVI knew English history well, especially the history and downfall of Charles I, whose mistakes he was trying to avoid. He taught himself English and had ambivalent feelings towards England (the author calls them a love-hate relationship). After the Peace of Paris, which forced France to cede Canada, there were revanchist sentiments in French society, and now, it seemed, there was a chance to give them a way out.
After much hesitation, the king decided to enter the war on the side of the “rebels” who had risen against their legitimate monarch. Foreign secretary Vergennes urged him to do so. It was a difficult decision for the monarch, both morally and financially.
The French king had already pursued rearmament, in particular naval rearmament. Some believed that rearmament, rather than open confrontation with England, was Louis' original goal. The king and Vergennes hoped for favorable trade with the American states, but after the war, the Americans preferred to continue trading with England. The Treaty of Fontainebleau (1785) can be seen as the apogee of Louis' reign. Under this agreement, the Dutch Republic, a long-time ally of England, switched sides and became a French ally.
The success, however, was short-lived. The Dutch would soon break the agreement with France, following the conflict between the Statthalter and the local revolutionary group.
This would turn the success into a shameful defeat that would damage the French monarch's reputation at home and abroad and probably help to accelerate the Revolution.
Talking about the infamous necklace affair, which gravely affected the climate of opinion, the author points out the new evidence that sheds a slightly different light on it. It may explain why Louis and Marie Antoinette reacted as they did to this scandal at the center of which they found themselves.
Louis XVI might have been a good constitutional monarch had the situation been more stable. He showed a certain openness to the new ideas brought about by the Revolution, but who knows how sincere he was.
The king made mistakes and often failed to show the necessary consistency and determination, but the revolutionary authorities and Napoleon Bonaparte, who seized power from the Directory, also made mistakes and many rash decisions. If the reign of Louis ended in a sound fiasco, it seems that this verdict can also be applied to the then established republican regime and the empire of Bonaparte that replaced it. Those regimes too, as we know, were doomed to collapse.
Despite his frequent indecisiveness and the apathy that overcame him at some point, Louis continued to play a political game in which he had relatively little chance of success. Historians from different schools and with varying personal views often assess the personality of the king very differently, but they agree on one thing: Louis' behavior during his imprisonment in the Temple, his trial, and his execution was noble.
While a traditional assessment presents Louis as a weak king, overwhelmed by challenging circumstances and ultimately defeated, some modern authors seem to idealize him, portraying him as a pacifist, the "father of his people" who suffered unjustly. The author reminds us that both extremes are far from the complex reality and advocates a balanced, nuanced portrayal of this king with different shades, whose reign was not a monolith. It was made up of different phases.
Extraordinary circumstances demanded of Louis qualities that he probably did not have. If he wanted to gain the upper hand over his opponents or simply to save himself and his family, he had to take risks. Louis' life and career suggest that risky, swift decisions were contrary to his nature. One example is his failed escape from Paris when the king could not bring himself to make a bold decision that would have given him and his family a chance to succeed.
This review is already long, so I will have to sum it up. I found this book informative and quite neutral. It will probably be more interesting for those who want to delve deeper into the subject and look at how the images of the last king of the French Old Regime have changed over time.
This is how the philosopher Holbach greeted the beginning of Louis XVI's reign. This stylized passage encapsulates high, probably too high, expectations that many contemporaries had of the young king.
France was tired of the long reign of Louis XV (the new monarch's grandfather) and welcomed his successor with genuine enthusiasm.
The elevated expectations carried with them the seeds of future disappointment.
The central subject of this book, Louis de Bourbon, had many facets.
The king, whose life was to be cut short in his thirty-ninth year, had to try on several titles that reflected both the personal life of the king and the complex fate of the country at a time of socio-economic crisis and the outbreak of revolution.
At birth, the boy received the title of Duke of Berry
On the death of his father, the dauphin of France
On the death of Louis XV (his grandfather) King of France and Navarre
Before the Revolution, Louis the Beneficent
In August 1789, by the decree of the constituent assembly, declared Louis the Restorer of French liberty
By the constitution of 1791, King of the French
By the minority of the legislative assembly in the month of June 1792, Monsieur Veto
In August of the same year, Louis Capet, Louis the traitor, and Louis the last.
This book is not, strictly speaking, a biography of the king. John Hardman dedicated another book to Louis's life.
Here, he offers an analysis of the reputations attributed to Louis by his contemporaries and later biographers. The author examines the images of the last king of the Old Regime (l'Ancien Régime) that have survived and persisted in the collective historical consciousness. He focuses on the representations that have left the most serious mark on historiography and comments on them. To illustrate Louis's various reputations, Hardman chooses to rely on biographers who were closest to the years of the king's life. He often cites the testimony of J.-L. Soulavie, who, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, had the unique opportunity to work with Louis's papers before most of them were dispersed and lost. Despite the absence of many of the originals, the documents cited by Sulavi are largely considered authentic.
The book contains thirteen chapters, twelve of which shed light on specific stages of the king's life, while the final chapter presents three different views of the reign and the author's conclusion. Each of these stages is important, and Louis at the beginning and the middle of his reign is not Louis in his later years, as he is best remembered by posterity.
The author looks to explain some of Louis' decisions and come closer to understanding his character, neither justifying nor condemning.
When Louis came to the throne, he took his responsibilities seriously and meant to make life better for his people. He was aware that reforms were necessary. First and foremost, a regressive tax system had to be made less unfair and stop placing the main burden on the Third Estate (le tiers état), which represented the bulk of French society. However, these reforms became the bone of contention that eventually led to the convening of the States General (not convened since 1614), which triggered the beginning of the Revolution. The first major political decision of the new sovereign was the return from exile of the disgraced parliaments, especially the Parliament of Paris, which had been dispersed during the previous reign. Many scholars believe that this was a mistake that not only limited the monarchy's room for maneuver but also became a serious obstacle on the road to change. However, such a step was actively lobbied for by Minister Maurepas (Louis's chief minister until 1780), and Louis thus sought to maintain his popularity with the people, who generally welcomed the decision. The king was convinced that he must by all means gain and retain popularity in the masses. At the same time, another financial crisis was brewing in the country... The author describes the successive ministers and Louis's attempts to carry out vital reforms with their help.
Hardman rightly notes the king's desire to solve the problem but also exposes his weakness in the face of the united opposition of the royal court, the parliaments, and his own wife. Louis lacked the political will to consistently oppose those who surrounded him in the golden cage of Versailles.
The book discusses foreign policy, which was considered "the principal metier of the kings." Louis XVI seems to have paid much attention to it.
His reign coincided with a war of the North American colonies for independence from the British crown. Britain was a country that had recently inflicted an ignominious defeat on France in the Seven Years' War.
Louis XVI knew English history well, especially the history and downfall of Charles I, whose mistakes he was trying to avoid. He taught himself English and had ambivalent feelings towards England (the author calls them a love-hate relationship). After the Peace of Paris, which forced France to cede Canada, there were revanchist sentiments in French society, and now, it seemed, there was a chance to give them a way out.
After much hesitation, the king decided to enter the war on the side of the “rebels” who had risen against their legitimate monarch. Foreign secretary Vergennes urged him to do so. It was a difficult decision for the monarch, both morally and financially.
The French king had already pursued rearmament, in particular naval rearmament. Some believed that rearmament, rather than open confrontation with England, was Louis' original goal. The king and Vergennes hoped for favorable trade with the American states, but after the war, the Americans preferred to continue trading with England. The Treaty of Fontainebleau (1785) can be seen as the apogee of Louis' reign. Under this agreement, the Dutch Republic, a long-time ally of England, switched sides and became a French ally.
The success, however, was short-lived. The Dutch would soon break the agreement with France, following the conflict between the Statthalter and the local revolutionary group.
This would turn the success into a shameful defeat that would damage the French monarch's reputation at home and abroad and probably help to accelerate the Revolution.
Talking about the infamous necklace affair, which gravely affected the climate of opinion, the author points out the new evidence that sheds a slightly different light on it. It may explain why Louis and Marie Antoinette reacted as they did to this scandal at the center of which they found themselves.
Louis XVI might have been a good constitutional monarch had the situation been more stable. He showed a certain openness to the new ideas brought about by the Revolution, but who knows how sincere he was.
The king made mistakes and often failed to show the necessary consistency and determination, but the revolutionary authorities and Napoleon Bonaparte, who seized power from the Directory, also made mistakes and many rash decisions. If the reign of Louis ended in a sound fiasco, it seems that this verdict can also be applied to the then established republican regime and the empire of Bonaparte that replaced it. Those regimes too, as we know, were doomed to collapse.
Despite his frequent indecisiveness and the apathy that overcame him at some point, Louis continued to play a political game in which he had relatively little chance of success. Historians from different schools and with varying personal views often assess the personality of the king very differently, but they agree on one thing: Louis' behavior during his imprisonment in the Temple, his trial, and his execution was noble.
While a traditional assessment presents Louis as a weak king, overwhelmed by challenging circumstances and ultimately defeated, some modern authors seem to idealize him, portraying him as a pacifist, the "father of his people" who suffered unjustly. The author reminds us that both extremes are far from the complex reality and advocates a balanced, nuanced portrayal of this king with different shades, whose reign was not a monolith. It was made up of different phases.
Extraordinary circumstances demanded of Louis qualities that he probably did not have. If he wanted to gain the upper hand over his opponents or simply to save himself and his family, he had to take risks. Louis' life and career suggest that risky, swift decisions were contrary to his nature. One example is his failed escape from Paris when the king could not bring himself to make a bold decision that would have given him and his family a chance to succeed.
This review is already long, so I will have to sum it up. I found this book informative and quite neutral. It will probably be more interesting for those who want to delve deeper into the subject and look at how the images of the last king of the French Old Regime have changed over time.
January 29, 2017
An interesting book that tracks Louis by examining a series of historiographical debates about different sections of the King's life. All in all, some good material for the historian here, but not for the general reader who is not already familiar with the basic facts.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews