Elina Kauppinen
University of Jyväskylä
The role of official royal mistresses in eighteenth-century Western European discourses on
the legitimacy of monarchical rule
During the early modern period intimate love between a man and a woman was legitimate
and proper only between a husband and a wife. Marriage was a sacred institution that was
considered as a cornerstone of social order. Yet, despite strong sentiments about conjugal
fidelity it was a well-established practice among ruling princes to keep mistresses. Keeping
mistresses was, if not a legal intimate extramarital relationship between a man and a woman
then at least one that was well-known and well-established, and most of all, obviously
approved at least by the nobility. During the eighteenth century openly keeping mistresses
was even fashionable, à la mode in imitation of the French court1.
In my dissertation I will analyse multisited discourses concerning the mistresses of Louis XV
of France and George I and George II of Great Britain. For this paper I have studied the
biographical texts concerning recognized French mistresses and correspondence and memoirs
of several British statesmen and ambassadors.2 This paper focuses on two well-known
mistresses: Jeanne- Antoinette Poisson, Madame d’Etiolles by marriage, better known as
Marquise de Pompadour, who was Louis XV’s mistress from 1745 to her death in 1764; and
Jeanne Bécu, Comtesse du Barry by marriage, who was the last mistress of Louis XV from
1758 (officially from 1759) until his death in 1774.
Both Mme de Pompadour and Mme du Barry were officially recognized mistresses,
maîtresse-en-titre. The status of maîtresse-en-titre was recognized through official
ceremonies, most importantly the formal presentation to the court3. Because of this formal
1
The practice of openly keeping mistresses spread among the wealthy and powerful from the late seventeenth
century. See, for example, Hufton 1998, 21, 307 – 308, 311, 325 - 328;See also, Mairobert 1775, 218 “Il [JeanBaptiste du Barry] ne continua pas moins de vivre avec elle [Mme Murat], & se donne les airs d’afficher ainsi
un scandale, reserve jusques-là seulement pour les Princes, les Grands Seigneurs, les Ministres […]” JeanBaptiste du Barry was Mme du Barry’s supporter, former lover and the older brother of her husband, count
Guillaume du Barry. Haslip 2005, 18, 26; Shennan 2007, 156. In the texts the husband Guillaume is usually
referred to as “Dubarrè the Gross” or “le Mari” and the supporter Jean-Baptiste as “Great Dubarrè” or “Le
Beau-frere”. See, for example, Bécu 1777a, 14 – 15; Mairobert 1775, 216, 239. According to the cited anecdote
Jean-Baptiste du Barry had married his mistress Murat to a Chevalier de St. Louis, also called Murat, but
continued to live with her in a scandalous manner that was formerly accepted only among Princes, Lords and
Ministers.
2
For my dissertation I will also include correspondence of the French ambassadors stationed in the British
court. This however will require a visit in the Bibliothèque du ministerère des Affaires étrangères scheduled for
the next year.
3
See, for example, TNA SP 78/277 f31 – 32, Harcourt to Weymouth, Paris, January 11 1769; TNA SP 78/277
f81, Harcourt to Weymouth, Paris, Jan. the 25th 1769; TNA SP 78/277 F106 – 107, Harcourt to Weymouth, Paris
February 2 1769; TNA SP 78/277 f112, Harcourt to Weymouth, Paris, Febr. the 5th 1769; TNA SP 78/277 f130,
Harcourt to Weymouth, Paris, Feb. 20th 1769; TNA SP 78/277 f172, Harcourt to Weymouth, Paris, March the
20th 1769; TNA SP 78/277 f181, Harcourt to Weymouth, Paris, March 26th. 1769; TNA SP 78/278 f44 – 45,
Harcourt to Weymouth, Saturday night April 22 [1769]; TNA SP 78/278 f56 – 57, Harcourt to Weymouth, Paris,
recognition of her status a mistress became a part of the royal court and the king’s inner
circle, but also a part of political center that was visible to larger audiences outside the court4.
The mistresses became public figures and as such they stimulated discussions everywhere in
Europe.
In Britain the term maîtresse en titre was known5 but not really used in relation to royal
mistresses. Most common terms when describing these mistresses were the King’s mistress6
or the royal mistress7, the reputed mistress8 and the acknowledged mistress9, Mistress in the
form10or the established mistress11 and very interestingly the reigning mistress12. Even
though the title of the mistress was not so official in the court of London the mistresses
enjoyed known status and the consequential benefits such as their own apartments and
usually considerable pensions.13
This paper will not constitute a prospective chapter for my dissertation but will display some
methodological perspectives as well as some examples on how legitimate use of power was
construed, maintained or challenged discursively through the gendered notions and
conceptions that were embedded in the use of language. I intend to describe what kinds of
power the mistresses were represented to wield and how they were described to have
achieved their influence. Last I will shortly give an example of the meanings of metaphors
and certain specific phrasings that were used in the debates on royal mistresses that
constituted an act of informal power and drew their meanings and power in relation to
prevailing political theories.
April 25th 1769. The correspondence shows the lengthy and difficult process of Mme du Barry’s presentation in
1769. On Mme du Barry’s presentations see also Mairobert 1775, 84 – 892, 94 – 100; Bécu 1777a, 29 – 50;
Mairobert 1779b, 31 – 35.
4
For example, officially recognized mistresses played a visible part in royal ceremonies. See, for example,
Mairobert 1775, 242 – 243 about an official ceremony at Pont de Neuilly where Mme du Barry enjoyed all the
honours of the occasion when appearing publicly beside the king.
5
See, for example, BL Stowe MS 88 Some account of the Affairs of France since the Disgrace of the Duc de
Choiseul to the year 1776 [1777?], f5.
6
See, for example, Hervey 1848a, 67, 98; Hervey 1848b, 147, 397; Walpole 1822a, 46; Walpole 1845a , 415;
Walpole 1818, 95.
7
See, for example, Walpole 1804a, 8, 129.
8
See, for example, Hervey 1848a, 93, 120.
9
See, for example, Walpole 1818, 30.
10
BL Stowe MS 88 Some account of the Affairs of France since the Disgrace of the Duc de Choiseul to the year
1776 [1777?], f5.
11
See, for example, Walpole 1818, 83.
12
See, for example, Walpole 1820c, 314. The reign of the mistress is a rather common term in both
biographical texts and correspondence. However, I will not go any deeper in this very meaningful phrasing
within this paper.
13
See, for example, Hervey 1848b, 144 – 145 about apartments prepared for Madame Walmoden; Hervey
1848b, 21 about pensions granted for Mrs. Howard. On the French mistresses, see, for example, TNA SP
78/227B f430, Thompson to Newcastle, Paris November the 12th 1742 about a pension coming with the title of
declared King’s Mistress for Madame de la Tournelle; TNA SP 78/229 f7, Thompson to Newcastle, Paris
October the 26th. 1743.
1. Language as representation and performative action
As known and visible persons the royal mistresses stirred the curiosity of early modern
European publics and the royal mistresses were under debate as persons and as a
phenomenon of courtly culture and monarchy. To be sure, this kind of debating was not open
in the prevailing political cultures. On the contrary, discussions about royal mistresses as well
as about other persons linked to royal persons were strongly censored14. For example, the
biographical texts analyzed in this paper were not published even in original language in
France. Instead, in order to circumvent the censorship the books were printed for example in
Britain and Netherlands, and smuggled to their French readers15.
Methodological and theoretical starting points for this paper lean on Quentin Skinner’s and
Reinhard Koselleck’s notions on the use of language as political action and on Joan Scott’s
thesis about gender as a basic factor of social relationships and as the most important (but not
the only) way to indicate the relations of power.16
Producing images and defining concepts always include power and as such it means that
language does not operate just at the level of rhetorics but it has possible effects on the social
reality as well17. Cultural values and sentiments are produced through language or statements
or speech acts that define concepts, create images and influence in opinions. And cultural
values influence in people’s choices and actions.18 Debates about royal mistresses also
participated in the wider debates on political practices, on monarchy as an institution and on
the legitimate use of power when defining these concepts for their part. The debates about
royal mistresses were thus in the intersection of many contemporary discourses (for example,
14
See, for example, Darnton 2000, 2 – 10; Darnton 2004, 109 – 110; Hesse 2007, 373; Munck 2002, 85 – 89,
117; Black 2004, 77. See also, Add MS 33026 f52, Albemarle to Bedford, Paris 27th Dec./ 7th Jan. 1749/50 “I
take this opportunity to inclose to Y. G. […] a small Historical Almanach [Galenderiet Historique pour l’Année
1750] that has made some Noise in this Town [Paris], from the notice that has been taken of it by the Court; I
have reason to believe that the orders for the suppression of it, which were issued last Sunday 4 th Jan., &
imprisoning and punishing the Author & Printer, proceeded originally from H. M. C. M. himself; […] be that as
it will, the Impressions s4eized as well as the persons concern still I think it proper to inform Y. G. of it as a
proof of the attention paid here to those sorts of Libells, and the regard in this Instance to H. M.’s sacred
person & Royal House.”
15
See, for example, Hesse 2007, 374; Darnton 2004, 103 – 108; Munck 2002, 85 – 89, 117.
16
See, for example, Koselleck 2004; Skinner 2002; Scott 1999.
17
In here I would like to stress that making a difference between realms of language and that of reality is an
artificial one when it comes to language-use as political action. Social reality arises from the processes of
describing, talking about and explaining social reality. Of course this does not exclude the possibility of extra/pre-linguistic components of ”reality”. Collin, 2002, 2 – 3; Sheehan 1978, 318.; Ifversen 2011, 67; Koselleck
2004, 128 – 129, 149 – 150, 222; Koselleck 1989b, 650 – 653; Sebastián & Fuentes 2006, 107; Jordheim 2011,
29. However, I find that this is a phisosophical question that could (and probably will) be debated for
perpetuity. There is always a gap between “reality” and the concepts or other linguistic articulations of this
”reality”. This cap is important to note, since it participates in creating a window for alternative descriptions,
but in the end the social reality is communicable only through language.
18
See, for example, Sebastián & Fuentes 2006, 107 – 108; Koselleck 2006; Koselleck 2004, 79 – 80, 128 – 129,
149 – 150, 156, 222, 252 – 254, 368 – 369, 371 – 378, 381 – 383;Koselleck 1996, 61, 64; Skinner 2002, 5, 117 –
118, 149 – 155, 182 – 184; Pocock 1973, 29 – 30; Sebástian 2007, 105; Palonen 1999, 46 – 48; Collin 2002, 2 –
3; Ifversen 2011, 67; Foucault 2005, 52, 85, 98, 148, 170 – 171, 211 – 214.
discourses on luxury, morality, monarchy and masculinity from which the latter are decidedly
most interesting ones) and thus in the debates also many different languages and images
corresponding to different discourses were used19. That is to say, debates about royal
mistresses did not only reflect or represent the prevailing political practices but also strived to
legitimate the given representation and through the processes of legitimation and general
acceptance of the given images influence in the political decision making. In this paper my
interest is on the ways of producing images on the use of power, or how powerfulness and
powerlessness are produced in the chosen texts. Thus, I consider the production of the text as
informal use of power, where the writer has striven for modeling and remodeling the intended
readers’ conceptions on the use of power.
When focusing on the early modern political culture, one must take notice that the gendered
conceptions and notions were embedded in the political practices and the languages used in
the political debates for political agency itself was tied to masculinity. In debates on the royal
mistresses gendered notions offered a medium through which relations of power were
construed and negotiated. That made the relationship of the king and his mistress as well as
its representations deeply political. In other words, all used texts although namely written
about royal mistresses are actually about monarchy, court and especially Louis XV and
George II in their dual role as both kings and men.
2. Sources for a multisited analysis
For this paper I have analyzed four biographies concerning Marquise de Pompadour and
three biographies20 concerning Comtesse du Barry, all written and published in eighteenth
century. Even though the studied biographical texts are named memoirs they are not memoirs
or biographies in modern sense. Rather they bear a likeness to collections of anecdotes where
widely known anecdotes about the famous mistresses are arranged by the writer to resemble a
biography (usually chronologically). In addition to anecdotes the biographies include open
letters and short articles (or reports of them) from the contemporary newspapers21. In spite of
titular writers none of the books is written by the mistress herself.
I do not think these texts can be considered as a works of certain single individuals since the
writers contribution to the complete texts has been in collecting the rumours and anecdotes
concerning the mistresses. In these texts there are imprints of various contemporary debates
and modes of communication. I am not saying that the writers’ opinions did not matter. Quite
the contrary, the arrangement of the anecdotes and creation of the narrative served as a mean
for the writer to convey certain messages and construct certain images. When compiling
anecdotes and other textual bits into continuous narrative the writer created by arranging new
19
Unfortunately, in the brevity of this paper I will not have the possibility to note this in all occasions.
Two of these texts are collections of letters. However, it is quite obvious that the letters are not genuine and
the texts resemble epistolary novels.
21
Robert Darnton’s term for these kinds of works is Libelles. See, for example, Darnton 1995.
20
meanings and directed readers’ interpretations through manipulating, recreating and hiding
for example communicative contexts of utterances22.
On the whole, biographical texts about the French royal mistresses are a rich source.
Interestingly enough, there are no similar texts about the British mistresses.
In addition I have analyzed five memoirs concerning the reign of George II (and one
concerning the reign of George III)23, correspondence of British ambassadors in France and
correspondence of several British statesmen. These texts show debates concerning royal
mistresses that cannot be considered public in the same way the published biographical texts.
However, this does not mean they did not include uses of power when writers strived for
creating certain images about the use and users of power (and usually also their own
relationship and weight to the represented users of power). Also, it must be noted that not all
letters were meant as private as we would like to think. Actually the material indicate in
several instances that in eighteenth century it was a common practice to read letters together,
show letters to others and discuss the contents of the letters with others24.
It is also obvious that not everything was written on the letters. Especially when it comes to
ambassadors it is astonishing how silent certain individuals were in relation to royal
mistresses. There are of course several reasons for this silence. First of all, at times the
diplomatic correspondence remained at a very general level and the ambassadors did not
bother to describe any events or persons in the court. This was the case also during for
example peace negotiations when there were more pressing matters. During such times most
of the correspondence consists of directives from Britain to ambassadors and very detailed
reports on the terms of peace from ambassadors to Britain. Second, the vividness of the
correspondence related of course also to the relationship of the writer and the recipient of the
letter. It was also determinant how the individual ambassadors understood their mission and
their reporting duty. Here both the individual ambassadors ideas as well as more general
ideas about the role of men and women become meaningful. Even though the mistresses or
22
For example, the same anecdote about Louis XV’s utterance can be found in two different biography: in
Letters to and from the Countess Du Barry ”I see very well my children have lost all regard for me” (Mairobert
1779b, 142.) and in Genuine memoirs of the Countess Dubarrè ”I see plainly that my children do not love me”
(Bécu 1777b, 332.). In both cases the form of the anecdote seems very similar but the writers are channeling
readers’ understandings of the utterance through textual context and are by careful placing of the anecdote
within the whole of the text producing very different interpretations of to whom the king is referring when
speaking about “his children”. This, of course, has an immense political potential in the light of well-known
state-family –analogy and the fact that a good king in eighteenth century was one whose Government was
“loved at home and respected abroad.” BL Stowe MS 89 A continuation of the Account of the Affairs of France
[1777?], f43.
23
These texts are not to be considered as eighteenth-century public debate. Though it must be noted that they
have been edited later, I will consider these texts as contemporary descriptions of court life, courtiers and
politics.
24
See, for example, BL Add MS 57811 f31 – 32, Bedford to Grenville, June 26th 1765 ”I begin another leaf, that
should you have a mind to communicate the former part of this letter, to any to whom this latter part may
seem to you improper to be shewn, you may be at liberty to do it.”; See also, BL Add MS 36798 f50, Stanley to
Pitt, June 12th 1761; Walpole 1820b, Walpole to Lady Hervey September 13. 1755, 37; Bedford 1842, Bedford
to Newcastle, August 12. 1748, 454.
other ladies of the court might have had some part to act in the political decision making,
politics, or Business25, was a masculine area where in theories was no (although maybe in
practice) place for women26. Third, the correspondence from the ambassadors was not the
only way for the British statesmen to gather news of the events and persons of the French
court. In addition to the ambassadors there were also other British officials (such as
ambassadors assistants and embassy clerks) and traveling individuals who visited the French
court and Paris, gathered information (and even gossips) and send them back home. Also
newsletters were sent from Paris to London27. Thus there might not have been a need to have
information about the courtly events through the diplomatic correspondence. However, there
are indications that the British statesmen wished to have reports on the groups and persons in
power28. Occasionally homeland even inquired after reports on royal mistresses.29 Fourth,
diplomatic correspondence was occasionally misplaced, lost or even seized on the road.30
Here it was always a risk that injurious gossiping in the letters might end up in the wrong
hands and insult the prominent and powerful persons of the court. And last, there are some
indications that the most juicy anecdotes and sensitive matters were not told through letters
but face to face31.
25
See, for example, Walpole 1845a, 16; Walpole 1818, 86; TNA SP 78/221 f6, Waldegrave to Newcastle,
Compiegne July the 19th 1739; TNA SP 78/237 f343, Albemarle to Bedford, Paris 19/30 Dec. 1750; TNA SP
78/251 f86, Stanley [to Pitt], Received from Mr. Stanley June 12: 1761; TNA SP 78/218 f276, 277, 289,
Waldegrave to Newcastle Paris July the 2d 1738; BL Add MS 36798 f160, 161, 170, Stanley to Pitt, Paris August
6th 1761.
26
Masculinity and political agency were inseparably intertwined everywhere in eighteenth-century Europe.
See, for example, Karin Sennefelt ‘s “Masculinity, sociability and citizenship in Stockholm in the Age of Liberty”
(2011). Of course politics were discussed also in less formal occasions, such as suppers, where women could
participate in debates and express their opinions. Women could pursue political objectives but could do so
acceptably only in arenas other than political (e.g. social). Basically only men could acquire offices needed in
political activity and thus theoretically only men could influence in the political decisions. Also, according to
civil law women were economically bound to men almost throughout their lives and thus not considered as
independent agents entitled to or even capable of political participation. Masculinity was also an integral part
of political rhetorics. See, for example, Hufton1998, 55 – 59, 140, 240; McCormack 2005; Merrick 1994;
Dudink, Hagermann & Clark 2007, xi – xvii; Clark 2007, 3 – 22; Clark 1998, 20;Chalus 2000; Hicks 2005.
27
See, for example, BL Add MS 35445 that is a collection of newsletters containing news and gossips from Paris
in Hardwicke papers.
28
See, for example, BL Egerton MS 3457 f69, Albemarle to Holdernesse, Paris April 8th 1753 “Your Lordship
desires to Know the composition of this Court & with whom power and influence is really lodged. This in the
second particular is a very difficult task to answer, the first is easy.”
29
TNA SP 78/249 f245, Robinson to Albemarle, Whitehall 16th May 1754, where Sir Thomas Robinson,
Secretary of State for the Southern Department, wished to have an account of the details concerning the affair
of Marie-Louise O’Murphy, mistress (but not official) of Louis XV, who was speculated to displace Mme de
Pompadour.
30
Some of the correspondence is on cypher for this reason. See, for example, TNA SP 78/251 f86 – 87, Stanley
[to Pitt], Received from Mr. Stanley June 12: 1761; BL Add MS 36798 f177, From Stanley to Pitt, Paris august
the 20th 1761; TNA SP 78/227B f364 – 365, Thompson to Newcastle, Paris Sept. the 5th 1742; TNA SP 78/219
f125, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Fontainebleau Oct. 14. 1738; TNA SP 78/227B f143 – 144, Waldegrave to
Newcastle Fontainebleau November the 11th 1738; TNA SP 78/218 f289, Waldegrave to Newcastle, Compiegne
July the 18th 1738.
31
Add MS 36798 f255, Stanley to Pitt, Sept.ber 15th 1761 ”When I have the honour of seeing You, I can prove
all these Matters to You in the clearest Manner.” Where Stanley is referring to the famous case of Miss
O’Murphy.
By choosing to combine two sets of sources, firstly published materials that reflected and
contributed eighteenth-century publics’ debates and secondly exchanges of letters of
eighteenth-century courtiers that reveal language-uses and constructions of meanings in
political centers, I endeavor to bring forth meaningful similarities, differences and transfers in
debates about royal mistresses. That is to say, essentially I am interested in multisited
discourses on the monarchs in relation to their mistresses that occurred in several
interconnected forums nationally and transnationally32. I argue that during the eighteenth
century the royal mistresses formed a topic that interested different kinds of European publics
and accordingly publics debated and used the discourses about mistresses differently for their
own purposes. The chosen set of material show that representations of royal mistresses’ use
of power (as well as the representations on the mistresses’ as subjects to the use of power) are
very inconsistent which demonstrates that the agents using the representations had varying
agendas.
Notion that discourses on the royal mistresses were multi-sited is constituent in recovering
contexts. Debating that occurred within a nation might have been different by nature when
looking into different social groups and might have used different forms of communication
such as oral discussions or printed books. Of course debates were not limited in one nation
but they were spread outside the borders. Especially biographies of famous mistresses such as
Mme de Pompadour and Mme du Barry have been translated from French into other
European languages, for example into English and German33. This demonstrates that there
were audiences for discussions about French mistresses also outside France. Here questions
and problems concerning various contexts of text production as well as meaning-formations
become focal. When finding texts about French royal mistresses that were intended to
audiences outside France one must ask what meanings these texts had both in French and
non-French contexts. Did these texts possibly offer ways to non-French audiences to debate
about domestic royal mistresses during times when it was not possible to have open
conversations on the subject due strict censorship? Also different possibilities for open
debates on mistresses and nature of such debates must be noted in different national contexts
and between them.
The fact that texts concerning French mistresses were translated into other European
vernaculars is interesting as such. It indicates that there was reading audience outside the
French speaking gentility34 that was both interested in French royal mistresses and willing to
pay for printed books dealing with their lives. When analysing these translations it must be
noted that translating itself is an inventive process that participates in constructing
meanings35. When debates and texts move from one place to another their meanings change.
32
Halonen, Ihalainen & Saarinen (2014).
For example, Fauques’ L’histoire de Madame la Marquise de Pompadour was published also in English under
the title of The history of the Marchioness de Pompadour and in German Die Geschichte der Marquisinn von
Pompadour. However, the Dutch Historie van Mevrouwe de Hartoginne van Pompadour:… (1761) by Franciscus
Lievens Kersteman is not a translation of Fauques’ book.
34
French was the language of educated elites throughout Europe in eighteenth century.
35
See, for example, Pernau 2012.
33
Ambiguous nature of language makes it possible that utterances gain new meanings that the
writers’ did not originally intend. Looking from this offset the texts gain and hold multiple
meanings, since their internal multivocality is already a substantiation of writers compiling
them from multi-sited discourses.
Answering these questions and problems require noticing also transnational approaches that
focuses on transitions, dislocations and transfers. This approach is useful especially when it
comes to analysing the exchange of letters within and between the courts. The royal courts
were very much attached to one nation and its events and conventions. Yet, the noble
courtiers were traveling between different nations and visiting different courts. There were
family ties and other networks of loyalties and friendships between different courts that
transcended the political and geographical borders. Especially women are paramount in
fixing ties between ruling elites, since they played a dual role when marrying to courts of
foreign nations.
All above mentioned notions concerning the multisitedness of the discourses on royal
mistresses focus on spatial distinction. However, there are also different temporal contexts
that must be noted. Debates about royal mistresses occurred during the whole eighteenth
century and their biographies were printed and reprinted at different times. In the course of
time the meanings of texts to their audiences unavoidably changed in a way that distanced the
original intended meanings further from those meanings readers actually formed. In
consequence texts might lose some meanings and their influence in shaping readers opinions
and images might have diminished in certain areas. On the other hand, it might also happen
that in certain areas texts influence in constructing conceptions cumulated.
3. Did the mistresses have power?
As mentioned before, keeping mistresses was somewhat accepted practice among the ruling
princes that was also mimic by the aristocracy in late seventeenth century onward. When
justifying the keeping of a mistress the eighteenth-century writers based their arguments on
different discourses. Most commonly their arguments were based on medical theories on the
different functions of the male and female bodies. Also arguments based on the conceptions
on the noble lifestyle and noble ideals were common. However, religious ideas were used
very rarely in order to justify mistresses. This is, of course, due to the fact, that essentially
keeping a mistress was an adulterous act that church could not openly endorse for any
reason36. In their role as the entertainers of the kings the mistresses were generally accepted.37
36
Only in Mme de Pompadour’s case can be seen justifications based on religious ideas. However, even though
religious explanations were possible in this case they were not common. Rather the relationship was justified
through ideas about friendship. The church authorities did not subscribe to keeping mistress even if there was
no physical relationship.
37
At least during the first half of the eighteenth century. After that the sentiments towards the kingship were
changing rather rapidly and the king was started to be perceived as an example to his people. See, for
example, Graham 2000, 240; Scott 1990, 6; Censer 1997, 194. Thus, the marital fidelity gained political
meanings and the keeping of the mistresses, at least as openly as before, decreased. For example, both George
III and Louis XVI decided not to have mistresses openly.
However, this was not the only purpose the mistresses served in eighteenth-century political
culture. There was a side in mistresses that was potentially alarming for the administration.
The close position of the mistress in the inner circle of the king and her personal relationship
and straight access to the majesty gave her a prospect to use her influence over him. This use
of power was by no means formal since the mistresses as women could not hold any official
position that entitled the use of formal power. The mistresses operated as a medium to
different agents who wished to gain something from the administration or straight from the
majesty38.
Women wielding power, either formal or informal, were problematic in eighteenth-century
Europe even in those countries where a woman could use sovereign power formally and
legally. France was not one of those countries but Britain was. Gendered division that
excluded women from official posts39 and political agency was based on the prevailing
conceptions of the natural characteristics distinct to men and women. For example, qualities
generally considered as feminine were vanity, lower rationality, inability to control one’s
desires, dependency, sentimentality, chastity, modesty, compassion and piety, and qualities
considered as masculine were rationality, independency, virility, ability to control one’s
desires, violence and ambitiousness40. Of course these qualities served different purposes and
gained different meanings in different eighteenth-century discourses. For example, the
language of rationality was an essential part of Enlightenment discourse but the idea about
women’s weaker intellectual abilities were used in other discourses as well, for instance the
idea was used when debating women’s rights for political participation, women’s compliance
to husband’s will, women’s right for education and occupation and women’s right to own and
control property41. Since the texts that I am using as sources are not strictly medical or
religious texts there are imprints of various and occasionally even contradictory discourses
that are mixed to serve the writers’ purposes. Thus, there are ideas about women and men and
their proper duties and places that are based on all kinds of eighteenth-century philosophies
(including those that advocated women’s abilities and rights), religious and medical theories,
experiences of the everyday life and common beliefs that could be local or shared by the
majority of Europe.
Most important and most widely accepted assumption concerning women’s use of power that
I need to note here was linked to conception on the relationship between the sexes.
Reciprocal and hierarchical relation of the sexes was derived for example from both the
38
See, for example, Suffolk 1824a, Mr. Hampden to Mrs. Howard 241 – 243, Mr. Hampden to Mrs. Howard
243 – 245, Miss Vane to Mrs. Howard 407 – 410. This kind of informal use of power by women is already
shown in several studies. See, for example, Chalus 2000. It is an interesting theme, but in this paper I would
like to concentrate on different kind of informal power, namely on the power used in shaping the images on
the use of power and the power-users.
39
In Britain there could be a female monarch but a woman could not hold any other office at the
administration.
40
See, for example, Merrick 1994, 648; McCormack 2005, 2, 20; Timm & Sanborn 2007, 21, 24; Wiesner-Hanks
2008, 62; Rendall 1985, 19.
41
See, for example studies of Keith Michael Baker on rational and republican ideologies or Lenard R.
Berlanstein on actresse’s power at the Comédie-Française.
scripture and the medical studies and theories whereupon the gender hierarchy and
characteristics appeared as unchangeable laws of both God and nature. According to these
laws of God and nature that of course reflected to and the worldly legislation, cultural
customs and practices of the church, women were considered to be naturally dependent to
men42. Thus the ruling women were an anomaly that evoked debate all over Europe.
3.1 Mme de Pompadour: king’s political adviser?
The mistresses’ use of power is represented in various ways in different sources. This of
course served the agenda of the writer. Mme de Pompadour is characterized as evil adviser in
most of the selected biographical texts43. She is described as a scheming and creed tyrant
using the highest power. However, she is described in every biographical text as participating
publicly in political decision making. For example, she is told to have participated in the
peace negotiations and in the forming of an alliance between France and Austria44.
In Memoirs of the Marchioness of Pompadour the use of power is represented very
differently. The highest power is used by the sovereign with the immediate assistance of his
ministers (as it should be in ideal eighteenth-century government). Mme de Pompadour
herself is described as being the king’s supporter situated in the proper manner a bit further
from the political decision making. Thus she occupied a position of a good wife when not
meddling into the politics on her own initiative and when being ready to give the king her
counsel when it was asked for. This is visible in the phrasings describing the moments of
Mme de Pompadour’s political participation. She did not appoint anyone to positions or
impose, but advised45. Similarly she did not impose her opinions or counsels but waited the
king to take the initiative: “[…]: it is true, the King asked my opinion upon many things;
[…]”46 or “[…] the King did me the honour to consult me upon [particular transactions in
respect for Great Britain]”47. Mme de Pompadour’s advice was asked in relation to political
affairs, such as navy.48 The king was also described to discuss other issues concerning both
domestic and foreign politics with Mme de Pompadour.49
In the biographical texts Mme de Pompadour is represented as participating to management
of foreign and domestic issues that was considered and called politics in eighteenth century.
Also in the studied correspondence this image of Mme de Pompadours participation in
42
See, for example, McCormack 2005, 2, 4, 13, 19, 56; Sennefelt 2011, 318; Jones 1994, 939 – 940; Hicks 2005.
Fauques 1759a & b; Fauques 1766?a & b; (Anon.) 1769.
44
See, for example, Fauques 1766?b, 152; Fauques 1766?a, 112, 119 – 120. Mme de Pompadour was active
and influential in foreign politics. Her public “career” ended at the end of the Seven Years War and Treaty of
Paris in 1763. Shennan 2007, 148.
45
See, for example, Poisson 1766b, 162.
46
Poisson 1766b, 240.
47
Poisson 1766b, 60.
48
Poisson 1766b, 59 – 60.
49
See, for example, Poisson 1766a, 202 ”These memorials I had read to me, and afterwards talked them over
to the King.”; Poisson 1766a, 216 “We had often little debates about government, […]”; Poisson 1766b, 242 –
243, where Mme de pompadour and Louis XV are discussing the war against England.
43
politics is repeated50. Here, however the representation is not always unanimous in respect to
the power and interest she was described to have in political affairs. During his special
mission to France for peace negotiations in 1761 Hans Stanley held a frequent
correspondence with William Pitt, then Secretary of State, that is very detailed as far as
describing the person of the French court. He communicated his image of Mme de
Pompadour’s power, or actually the lack of it, to his patron in several occasions. According to
Stanley Mme de Pompadour had no real weight and the person of true political eminence was
Étienne-François, Duc de Choiseul, then Secrétaire d’État aux Affaires étrangères but
effectively the chief minister of Louis XV:
“It is now clear to all who have attention the means of Information, that the Duc de Choiseul has
subjuguè Madame de Pompadour, She meddles very little with the Business, & dares give no
answer without consulting him; It is not thought, however, that he will aim after Dismission: The
King wants a Companion, and the Duke believes her to be a little dangerous to his lover, as any
new object he could place about his Majesty.” 51
“[…]; Madame Pompadour has ever been looked upon by all preceding Courtiers, & Ministers, as
their Tutelary Deity, under whose Auspices only they could exist, and who was as much out of
their Reach, as if She were of a superior Class of Beings, but this Minister [Duc de Choiseul] is
far from bearing a Subordination to Her Influence, that He seized the First Occasion to deprive
Her, not only an Equality, but of any Share of Power, reducing Her to the Necessity of applying
Him even for those Favours that She wants for Herself, and Her Dependants: […]”. 52
Instead, Duc de Choiseul is described as the most potent and capable man in the French court
throughout the correspondence.53 There is a quite reasonable explanation to such a divergent
interpretation of the Mme de Pompadour’s power: Stanley worked and negotiated mainly
with Duc de Choiseul who was then the minister officially responsible of foreign affairs54 and
thus wanted to give a good impression on his skills in creating relationships to the right
person at the French court to his patron. Also, the correspondence betrays Stanley’s attempt
to create an image about Mme de Pompadour as powerless. Instead he ends up in describing
the struggles for power between the mistress and the minister and even occasional triumphs
50
See, for example, Walpole 1822b, 307 – 308; TNA SP 78/232 f182 – 183, Yorke to Bedford, Paris, April 15/26
1749; BL Egerton MS 3457 f68 – 71, Albemarle to Holdernesse, Paris April 8th 1753; Bedford 1843, Mr. Rigby to
the Duke of Bedford, Leicester Fields, May 24. 1755, 164; Bedford1846, Duke of Bedford to Lord Egremont,
Paris, September 19. 1762, 110 – 111. See also BL Add MS 35445 f202, Paris le 23 mar 1752, 202.
51
BL Add MS 36798 f101, Stanley to Pitt, June 28th 1761.
52
BL Add MS 36798 f161, Stanley to Pitt, August 6th 1761. See, also, BL Add MS 36798 f178 - 179, Stanley to
Pitt, August 20th 1761 “I cannot help observing, that in my frequent Intercourse with Brother, and Sister [Duc
de Choiseul and Duchesse de Grammont], neither of them has ever given me the least Hint, that it would be
proper for me to see Mad. de Pompadour, or has ever said any Thing at all, that shewed any Respect, or good
will towards her: I was, on the contrary, advised by the very best and most confidential hand, against seeking
her: still more against speaking of any Business to her, without the Minister’s previous Direction; as against
Steps, that would be highly resented, and would be fatal to my Success: […]”.
53
See, for example, BL Add MS 36798 f101, Stanley to Pitt, June 28th 1761; BL Add MS 36798 f161, 165, 170,
Stanley to Pitt, August 6th 1761; BL Add MS 36798 f176, Stanley to Pitt, August 20th 1761.
54
See, for example, BL Add MS 36798 f41, Stanley to Pitt, June 8 – 9th 1761; BL Add MS 36798 f177, 178,
Stanley to Pitt, August 20th 1761; BL Add MS 36798 f181, Stanley to Pitt, August 22d 1761.
of the mistress55. That is to say, Mme de Pompadour was not powerless. She had actually
quite an influence but she was not using her influence in order to help negotiate good terms
for England. Instead she was engaged with the Austrian Habsburgs, negotiating an alliance
with Habsburg and Bourbon dynasties and protecting the interest of Empress Maria
Theresa56. At the end of his mission Stanley stated this very clearly:
“It is my first opinion, That the Conclusion of a Peace with England, or the Continuation
of the Austrian Alliance, depend upon the Interior state of the French Court; That the
Duc de Choiseul (notwithstanding all variable, and even contrary Appearance) is
disposed towards the first Plan, as Mad. de Pompadour is most zealous for the second.”57
3.2 Mme du Barry: instrument of power
As stated before the mistresses offered an unofficial medium to different agents to access the
king’s ear. In this respect the biographical texts concerning Mme du Barry offer a distinct
description of the mistress’ power. As in most of the biographical texts concerning Mme de
Pompadour also texts about Mme du Barry depict someone else other than the king as the
user of the highest power in France. In most cases concerning Mme de Pompadour this
wielder of power was said to be the mistress herself. Mme du Barry is described to be an
abuser of her position but besides her also the ministers closest to the king are represented as
evil advisers58. What is special about these representations about the mistress’ use of power is
that she herself is not described as an active adviser and political agent unlike Mme de
Pompadour. On the contrary, she is depicted as instrument of power for Jean-Baptiste du
Barry, Duc d’Aiguillon, Chancelier Maupeou and Abbé Terray59. Mme du Barry herself is
described repeatedly as incapable of and unwilling in participating in political action or even
in exploiting her special position to the fullest:
55
See, for example, BL Add MS 36798 f175 - 176, Stanley to Pitt, August 20th 1761, where Mme de Pompadour
is triumphing in King’s favour instead of Duc de Choiseul concerning a singular case of Marshall Broglio and
Prince de Soubise, 177 where is described the private correspondence between the Empress Queen of Austria
and Mme de Pompadour; BL Add MS 36798 f181, Stanley to Pitt, August 22d 1761, where Duc de Choiseul
seemed to bear a great discomfort when called suddenly to Mme de Pompadour; BL Add MS 36798 f210,
Stanley to Pitt, Sept. 2d 1761; BL Add MS 36798 f255, Stanley to Pitt, Sept.ber 15th 1761. These
representations are interesting since Mme de Pompadour and Duc de Choiseul have usually been considered
as allies and members of the same parti (along with ministers Bernis, Marigny and Bertin) that supported the
idea about parliaments as part of royal administration. See, for example, Van Kley 1997, 771; Henshall 1992,
75. This inconsistency serves to point out that eighteenth-century court parties were not political parties in the
modern sense but more like powerblocks or cliques that were joined together over certain common issue or
interest and might in other issues have opposite views. However, most powerful parties were more longstanding and could overcome minor differences in opinions over singular issues.
56
See, for example, BL Add MS 36798 f210, Stanley to Pitt, Sept. 2d 1761 “I had it, this Day, from the Person
alluded of the 20th, that Mad. de pompadour is stirring Heaven & Earth for that House [Habsburg]; and that He
[Duc de Choiseul] holds back.”
57
BL Add MS 36798 f255, Stanley to Pitt, Sept.ber 15th 1761.
58
Including, for example, Duc de Choiseul. See, for example, Bécu 1777a, 21.
59
See, for example, Bécu 1777a, 16 – 19, 100 – 101, 140 – 141, 157, 163 – 165; Bécu 1777b, 227; Mairobert
1779b, 25 – 27, 28 – 30, 32, 34 – 35, 64 – 68, 78 – 79, 101 – 103; Mairobert 1775, 67 – 70, 95, 150 – 151, 160 –
161, 169, 177 – 178, 181 – 183, 194 – 200, 219 – 220.
“The Lady [Mme du Barry] had none of those talents for intrigue that her situation
demanded.”60
“Un Rôle, où Madame Dubarri étoit vraiment déplacée, c’étoit lorsque’elle se mêloit de
politique.”61
Of course this lack of enthusiasm in meddling to political affairs was essentially a virtue for
Mme du Barry: she constrained her influence to those spheres of the king’s life that were
acceptable for her as a woman and a mistress, namely pleasing the king:
“Politics were not her taste; she found more pleasure in her endeavours to amuse the
Sovereign.”62
However, Mme du Barry was described to have another feminine virtue that made the
situation dangerous for the whole France: ability to follow instruction. Her supporter JeanBaptiste du Barry had noticed this early on and made use of it as soon as Mme du Barry
gained any footing at the king’s favour. He himself did not appear in the court too often but is
described to have instructed and manipulated Mme du Barry through frequent
correspondence. He had also set his sister in the vicinity of the mistress. Thus he could make
sure the royal mistress protected the interest of du Barry family.63
As for Chancelier Maupeou, Duc d’Aiguillon and Abbé Terray, they were described to
manipulate the mistress through flattering, intimidation and fueling her aspirations to
marriage with Louis XV.64
Mme du Barry was not only described to use informal power on Louis XV but was herself a
subject to uses of informal power; she was herself a manipulated stooge through whom
above-mentioned men gained access to the king, to the political decision making and to the
crown’s revenues. This was possibly even more dangerous than the rule by the mistress. The
business of the realm was not dictated by a sentimental, fickle and vain woman whose
ambitions and interest were only those of splendour, parade and ornamentation65, that indeed
were quite notoriously feminine vices. Instead the direction of government was directed by
determined and ambitious men behind Mme du Barry. This also hinted that basically anyone
who could find a way to successfully ingratiate the mistress could gain the king’s attention.
60
Bécu 1777b, 266.
Mairobert 1775, 228.
62
Bécu 1777a, 266.
63
Bécu 1777a, 16 – 19, 157; Mairobert 1779b, 25 – 27, 28 – 30, 32, 34 – 35, 66 – 68; Mairobert 1775, 68 – 70,
96.
64
See, for example, Bécu 1777a, 163; Mairobert 1779b, 69 – 72; Mairobert 1775, 181 – 183, 219 – 220. The
aforementioned gentlemen intimidated Mme du Barry for example by telling her that her position in the king’s
favour could not be secured as long as Duc de Choiseul remained at the court. See, for example, Bécu 1777a,
140. When nourishing Mme du Barry’s wishes of marriage all three men are described to have been well
aware of the fact that the marriage was in reality impossible to realize. See, for example, Mairobert 1779b, 71
– 72.
65
See, for example, Mairobert 1775, 225.
61
“All Business passed through the hands of Madame du Barry without whose approbation
nothing was transacted. Avarice and Vanity were her predominant Passions, and that address
to either never failed of Success. His negotiations were sure to be attended with the greatest,
who knew how to sacrifice to both, and engage her in his Interest. […]”66
Mme du Barry was already made use of as a medium to the king for an inappropriate user of
power, namely Jean-Baptiste du Barry who did not belong to the traditional ruling order. He
was not titled nor in possession of a noteworthy position. He was even not situated at the
court of Versailles but ruled the mistress and thus the king from the city of Paris. He was a
little more than a commoner and yet he could access the highest power through Mme du
Barry. This also violated the prevailing view about the world being fundamentally
hierarchically organized67.
4. Means of dominion
Since it is obvious that the women around the monarch were represented as influential and
they were imagined to use informal power it is necessary to look into how they exercised and
gained their power.
“[...] [Mme de Pompadour] assumed all the authority of a despotic mistress, that gave
what motion she pleased to the State-machine. […] Ministers disgraced, Generals
recalled at her imperious nod […]. In the mean time, this subversion of all order and
dignity threw a general languor into the administration of affairs.”68
In the context of eighteenth-century France this was a familiar representation of women’s use
of power. In general, women’s rule was characterized as corruption and chaos69. This is of
course also a part of the discourse opposing women’s formal political agency. The ruling
women were considered as violating the natural order where rational men were supposed to
rule. Considering the violation against the unchangeable laws of God and nature, this
violation would unavoidably lead to chaos, civil unrest and destruction of social order70. This
was presupposed to happen because women were considered to be controlled by their
passions and thus unable to think rationally or subdue their corruptive desires:
”[...] when one's affairs are put on so irregular a footing, as such a woman's whim, every
thing becomes precarious.”71
Female sovereign would undoubtedly be a tyrant or a despot since she would rule only
according to her will and she would not be able to comprehend the consequences of her
66
BL Stowe MS 89 A continuation of the Account of the Affairs of France [1777], 48.
See, for example, Munck 2002, 195 – 196.
68
Fauques 1759b, 128 – 130.
69
Spongberg 2002, 36 – 37.
70
Spongberg 2002, 36 – 37.
71
Fauques 1766?a, 192.
67
actions.72 On the other hand, this is also a part of the discourse of royal favourites where
critique against the monarch is diverted to so called evil advisers near the king instead of
criticizing him directly.
“[...] [Mme de Pompadour] assumed all the authority of a despotic mistress, that gave
what motion she pleased to the State-machine. […] Ministers disgraced, Generals
recalled at her imperious nod […]. In the mean time, this subversion of all order and
dignity threw a general languor into the administration of affairs.”73
The texts concerning Mme de Pomapadour as well as those concerning Mme du Barry seem
to state that France is no longer ruled by the legitimate sovereign but his mistress and she is
doing so in a despotic manner. In here the relevant question is how the mistresses are
described to seize the power?
4.1. In the hours of pleasures and intoxication
As stated, a mistress could not use any kind of formal authority but she could persuade the
king and through her influence on the king she could impact in the policy making. In the texts
concerning royal mistresses there was always presented the potential danger that a mistress
could conquer her royal lover with her treacherous beauty and charm him into her dominion.
Mme du Barry is described to have captivated the king so thoroughly that he was even not
ashamed to exhibit himself in indicent a manner to the eyes of the court and he publicly
showed “slavish attachment” to his mistress74. Mme du Barry’s influence was described to
rest upon her beauty and charm and of course on her talents in the royal bed.75
A model example of Mme du Barry’s use of power is an anecdote concerning the downfall of
Duc de Choiseul in 1770. The instance is depicted solely as Duc de Choiseul’s attempt to
replace Mme du Barry and Mme du Barry’s attempt to secure her position by overthrowing
Duc de Choiseul and his sister Duchess de Grammont76although behind the disgrace of the
minister there is longer debates between the crown and parliaments, a religious and
constitutional crisis and position of France vis-à-vis disputes between Britain and Spain77.
The power-struggle that dominate the biographical texts about Mme du Barry ended with the
dismissal of Duc de Choiseul with lettre de cachet. This edict was described to be written by
Duc d’Aiguillon and Chancelier Maupeou who then gave it to Mme du Barry. Mme du Barry
gained the necessary signature from the king with her personal influence on the king:
72
”despotical: a government when a prince having gained an absolute power over his people, is no longer
guided or controlled by the laws of his country but governs solely by his will and pleasure.” Bailey 1775,
“despotical”.
73
Fauques 1759b, 128 – 130.
74
Bécu 1777b, 196.
75
Mme du Barry is sometimes represented as having managed to charm the king with her talents and skills as
a former prostitute. See, for example, Bécu 1777a, 10 – 12.
76
Bécu 1777a, 140 – 143, 20, 23 – 29, 87 – 89, 102, 117 – 119, 125 – 126, 130 – 131, 135 – 137.
77
See, for example, Shennan 2007, 157.
“[…] they [d’Aiguillon, Maupeou] gave her the orders ready drawn up for signing; and
when her lover, with his head heated with delicious wines, and his heart inflamed with
love, which he poured out of her bosom, solicited the last favours, and there was nothing
more to be granted, she extorted the fatal signature […]”78.
The most important power-struggle of Mme du Barry’s life and late 1760s France was thus
resolved in the private chambers of Versailles “[…] in the hours of pleasures and intoxication
[…]”79.
Similar secret management of affairs is also described elsewhere in biographical texts. For
example in Letters to and from the Countess Du Barry Mme du Barry and Duc d’Aiguillon
are shown to discuss their failed attempt to acquire a lettre de cachet with the king’s signature
for Marquis de Monteynard. Mme du Barry managed to get the king to sign the lettre de
cachet after getting him to the right state of mind:
“The king had yielded to my intreats, and signed the lettre de cachet which I presented to
him when I brought him into the humour.”80
However the king regretted the next morning and tore the letter.81
In general, the writers of the texts concerning mistresses gave the reader to understand that it
was not uncommon that the amours of the kings affected to the affairs of Europe:
“[…] but after that, this would not have been the first time that the amours of a courtesan
have influenced the affairs of Europe.”82
It is not likely that the fortunes of the whole continent were solved in royal beds. The claim
that the management of political business was confined in the secret chambers and hours of
pleasures was a mean to criticize the politics under secret du roi. In France there was a
growing need for knowledge on the daily politics and demand for transparency83. In Britain
there was not similar secret du roi as in France but this did not mean that people in general
and members of parliament that were left outside the ministries in particular had fears for
administration from the secret cabinets. Certainly there were also people who knew how to
take advantage of these fears. In Britain the governing from the secret chambers was
78
Bécu 1777a, 172. See, also Mairobert 1775, 161 ” Madame Dubarri leur [M. le Chancelier & M. le Duc
d’Aiguillon] servit encore merveilleusement en cela. Comme le Roi soupoit Presque tous les soirs chez elle, ils
la prévenoient de ce qu’elle lui devoit dire; ils lui donnoient tout prêts les orders à signer, & quand son Amant,
la tête èchauffée des vins exquis qu’elle lui verso it, & le Coeur brûle de l’amour qu’il respiroit dans ses bras,
sollicitoit ses faveurs dernieres & n’avoit plus rien à lui refuser, elle en extorquoit les signatures fatales, & rien
ne passoit au Conseil; […]”
79
Bécu 1777a, 142.
80
Mairobert 1779b, 108.
81
Mairobert 1779b, 108.
82
Poisson 1766b, 194.
83
See, for example, Darnton 2004, 110; Graham 2000, 46, 59; Graham 1997.
considered to be typical to French politics84. Secret negotiations were a part of eighteenthcentury French political culture and a common practice in other European courts as well.
Also French opposition to the Crown’s policies that was located in the parliaments attacked
the secret administration of political affairs when striving for strengthening their own
political views and positions.85
4.2 The problematic influence of Mme de Pompadour
In used material it is represented explicitly that the mistresses used their sexual power and
sexual favours to subjugate the king. However it seemed to have caused some troubles for the
contemporary writers to explain the influence of Mme de Pompadour:
”She had not lived many years with the king, in quality of his mistress, in the most
extensive sense of that word, before she was disqualified from discharging what is
commonly thought the most essential function of it.”86
The intimate relationship between Louis XV and Mme de Pompadour ended a long time
before the death of the marquise but she remained in her position as maîtresse-en-titre till her
death. Also her influence in the court and high politics continued. The writers had to explain
her power in a different manner. She was represented to have secured “[…] her hold, by such
a multiplicity of chains, that even so great a one snapping, could not restore him [Louis XV]
to his freedom.”87
According to Fauques, Mme de Pompadour had made herself indispensable since she only
could humour him and organize entertainment according to his taste and most of all, she had
accustomed the king to spend time with her.88 Yet, the essential source of her power was still
exercising the sexual power. After their physical relationship ended Mme de Pompadour was
represented to exercise sexual power through other women89:
“[...] Madam Pompadour had established a kind of seminary for the reception of young
damsels that her emissaries were perpetually collecting in the city and suburbs of Paris,
to furnish new entertainment for the bed of her royal lover. The sagacious mistress was
sensible of the necessity of compensating for her own physical defects with foreign
supplies [...].”90
In the context of eighteenth-century France representing the king as slavish and repressed is
very critical and degrading notion that relates to both his masculinity and his ability and right
84
See, for example, Clark 1998, 20, 28 – 29.
See, for example, Bell 1994, 126.
86
Fauques 1766?a, 80.
87
Fauques 1766?a, 81.
88
Fauques 1766?a, 80 – 82.
89
See, for example, Fauques 1759b, 6 – 28; Fauques 1766?a, 93 – 99, 154 – 181; (Anon.) 1760, 76; Bécu 1777a,
1 – 2.
90
Bécu 1777a, 1.
85
to govern. During the early modern period power and masculinity were inseparably
intertwined. Masculinity was fixed to the patriarchal idea of a man as the head of the house91,
which is also present in the known analogy between family and state92. Prevailing
understanding of universal order and harmony rested on the assumption that a husband ruled
his wife, a father ruled his children and a sovereign ruled his subjects, where the benevolence
of the ruler and the affection of the ruled united the household/ nation.93
In the mid-century and especially in English-speaking world but also in France, the idea of a
political agent was increasingly based on manly independence.94 This masculine freedom and
independence was the prerequisite of political participation.95 Thus slavishness of the king
and possession of the king turned upside down the natural order of the world where a man
and a king were supposed to rule. Representing the king as a slave denied him the status of
the master and placed him amongst those who were considered as dependent and thus invalid
for public political agency, namely among the women, children and servants.
5. Undermining the legitimacy of monarchical rule through metaphors
The notion of Mme de Pompadour’s brothel served yet another purpose other than showing
the exercise of indirect sexual power of the mistress.
“It would be endless to enumerate all the different ladies who were introduced into this
seraglio, […] chief sultana [Mme de Pompadour], who was extremely careful to remove
all those who […] were likely to endanger her pre-eminence and power.”96
In this context Mme de Pompadour is referred as a directress of a seraglio, who selected
beautiful girls to be introduced into the royal bed and who removed from the seraglio the girls
she thought threatened her position as the chief sultana.
91
This caused some problems in Britain related to female monarchs: what was the relation between the
female monarch and her husband? Essentially a female monarch was the sovereign but was she still governed
by her husband as every married woman should? Then what was the relation of the husband to the British
nation?
92
See, for example, McCormack 2005, 20, 63; Timm & Sanborn 2007, 26; Jansson 2011, 193; Merrick 1994,
672.
93
See, for example Merrick 2005, 672; Jansson 2011, 193, 198 – 199; McCormack 2005, 20, 63; Timm &
Sanborn 2007, 26; Harvey 2005; As Graham argues, the state-family –model was starting to lose some of its
former meanings when both concepts of family and that of state were redefined during the eighteenth
century. However this did not mean that the idea would have been abandoned immediately. On the contrary,
the metaphor was already pervasive in the political thought and remained (although alongside with new
metaphors and ideas that were used to define state and political agency) at use. It is obvious that it
maintained some value as a rhetorical mean. Graham 2000, 159 – 160, 164.
94
McCormack 2005, 2, 4, 13, 19, 56; Sennefelt 2011, 318.
95
McCormack 2005, 2, 4, 13, 56; Sennefelt 2011, 317 – 319. The language of freedom and consequently the
expressions of slavishness were important in eighteenth century philosophy and political theories. For
example, the same conceptions were especially visible after the French Revolution when they served in
defining the citizenship as masculine. However, in the limits of this paper I will not tackle this question in its
whole richness.
96
Bécu 1777a, 2.
In this representation the choice of words and way of expression are most significant. The
writer created a metaphor when referring to Mme de Pompadour as a chief sultana.
Metaphors are constructed in interaction between two accustomed or familiar things whereby
it is possible to draw meanings from two different semantic fields and to by doing so also
produce new meanings.97 In here the writer has conjoined the semantic fields of a sultana and
an official mistress by existing or alleged similarities98 surrounding court, recognized
position, intimate extramarital relationship and center of power. Metaphors have also a strong
rhetorical aspect and they tend to map ideas beyond the basic correspondence99 thus making
rhetorical redescriptions possible through the use of metaphors. This mistress – sultana –
parallel gained meanings from several locus: both the semantic fields of the frame sultana
with all her residing attributes (e.g. harem, sultan, luxury, idleness, women’s oppressed
status, sexuality, Turkey, despotism/tyranny, exoticism) and the focus maîtresse-en-titre with
all her residing attributes (e.g. royal court, monarchy, king, civility, grandeur, glory). Thus
the metaphor gained meanings from the definitions of government as well and was significant
in defining French political system.
In eighteenth-century Europe the nature of the monarchy was debated even before
Montesquieu’s famous and hugely influential De l'esprit des lois (1748)100 where is defined
three main forms of government with their respective social principles: democratic republic
with the love of virtue as it’s principle; monarchy with the principles of love of honour and
rule by law; despotism with the principle of fear of the ruler and where there is no fixed laws
and an arbitrary sovereign rules solely by his (her) will101. Notions on seraglio and of course
those on the slavishness of the king conveyd critical views concerning the French political
system and the refinement of the whole society. In the Continent theoretical and
97
Schäfer 2012, 31 – 34; Kövecses 2005, 237 – 239. Metaphor is created by using one of the terms as a
“frame” and another as a “focus”. “Frame” is the part of the metaphor that is described or conceptualized by
the “focus” that is the part that is used in figurative way. See, for example, Schäfer 2012, 31; Ayoob 2007. Also
terms ”target”/ ”target domain” and ”source”/ ”source domain” are possible. Usually source domain is a bit
more physical or concrete ( for example “family”) and target domain more abstract (for example “state”). See,
for example, Kövecses 2005. In the process of forming the metaphor exploiting the qualities and meanings of
both the frame and the focus is allowed.
98
See, for example, Kövecses 2005, 265 – 267, where ability to recognize similarities and create allegories is
considered as creative actions in the making of figurative meanings. I am, however, less interested in the
creative processes of human mind and human cognitive potential as such than in things that can be done
when creating new or modelled figurative linguistic articulations or that what was done when using certain
metaphors in certain contexts.
99
See, for example, Kövecses 2005, 5 – 10.
100
During the eighteenth century and with the popularity of Montesquieu’s texts the term despotism replaced
the term tyranny as a concept for a corrupt monarchy. Richter 2006, 155. Of course the use of the term
expanded from the original limits during the eighteenth century. After the mid-century the term despotic
could be applied to both corrupt monarchy and administration as a whole (for example, ministerial despotism)
but also in every occasion where there was inappropriate use of power (for example, papal despotism,
despotic husband). See, for example, Poisson 1766a, 43, 136 (despotic ministers); Fauques 1766?a, 198
(Romish despotism); Mairobert 1779a,XVIII. Lettre, A Mr. Radix de Ste. Foix, Trésorier Général de la Marine, 6.
Décembre 1767, 25 – 26 (husband’s tyranny). For futher information, see for example, Beales 2006. In
biographical texts analysed for this paper terms tyranny and despotism were used side by side. In
correspondence the term tyranny is a rarity and despotism was the preferred term.
101
See, for example, Tomaselli 2006, 9, 26; Richter 2006, 154; Beales 2006, 512.
philosophical political debates and discussions focused on defining the limits of the
legitimate monarchical authority and limitations of legitimate exercise of power. Essential
feature of a monarchy as a legitimate form of government, unlike despotism, was that the
king must govern by the fixed and established laws102. That is to say that king’s use of power
is limited by laws of God and nature.103 This is the trait that was emphasized when promoting
the legitimacy of prevailing political system. Illegitimate use of power was described in the
terms of despotism, and in these political debates both those who sought to promote and those
who sought to criticize the prevailing political system used Turkey as an example of
illegitimate use of power and as an example of oriental despotism or tyranny104. Also themes
of sex and violence and women’s suppressed position in the society were essential elements
in the European debates on Turkey as uncivilized country and harem formed a central symbol
and image when defining Turkey and Turkish despotism105.
If in the sultana – mistress – parallel the official mistress was compared to chief sultana then
the king was compared to sultan, and therefore the form of French government was defined
through analogizing as despotism/tyranny instead of legitimate monarchy. Through
metaphorical conceptualization writer of this particular mistress – sultana –parallel
participated in defining monarchy as legitimate form of government and in taking a stand on
contemporary debates about French political system being monarchy corrupted to despotism.
Thus, reference through Mme de Pompadour’s royal harem questioned the legitimacy of the
French political system and the status of French society as a civilized European one.
Conclusion
Even though paradoxically illegitimate and yet publicly known, the keeping of the royal
mistresses was an accepted practice in eighteenth century. When different writers strived to
justify their keeping they based their argument on, for example, medical theories on different
needs and natures of the two sexes, on ideals of nobleman with his characteristics and on
ideas on the noble and courtly life where certain behavior and aspiration of distinction were
considered as central elements of good life.
It is obvious that the royal mistresses had the possibility to use informal power through the
influence over the king. This kind of use of influence is visible in the eighteenth-century
correspondences analysed for this paper. There are also quite a few studies made on this
informal power used by women. However, I am not as much interested in this kind of
informal power than in the informal power used when eighteenth-century agents struggled to
control the definitions of concepts and images on the use of legitimate power. In this paper I
102
Henshall 1992, 126, 129, 144 - 145; Beales 2006, 512 – 513; Richter 2006, 163 – 164. See also Bailey 1775,
“despotical”, “monarchy”; Johnson 1755 – 56a, “despot”, “despotical”, “despotick”; Johnson 1755 – 56b,
“tyranny”, “tyrant”; Ash 1775, “despot”, “despotic”.
103
Henshall 1992, 126, 129, 144 - 145; Beales 2006, 512 – 513; Richter 2006, 163 – 164.
104
See, for example, Beales 2006, 515; Lipsanen 2007, 5. See also Walpole 1848b, Letter CCCLXXXI, Strawberry
Hill, Nov. 10, 1793, 512; Fauques 1766?a, 198; Bailey 1775, “monarchy”.
105
See, for example, O’Brien 2007, 624 – 627; Lipsanen 2007, 5, 88, 95 – 97.
focus on the ways the two famous mistresses were constructed as powerful or powerless and
how the power they were described to use was constructed as legitimate or illegitimate.
To some extent the influence the studied ladies used could be constructed as legitimate. Here
their power could be expressed through the language of companionship and wifehood. As
long as the influence of the women the king was attached to was limited in the feminine areas
of life or what nowadays would be called private sphere106, their use of power could be seen
acceptable or even beneficial.
Effectively these kinds of representations could participate in defining the mistresses
existence justified. Also, the representations, especially those made by courtiers and ministers
in the everyday courtly circles, could have an effect in the power balance of the parties in the
court. If a mistress was constructed by linguistic articulations as powerless then fewer and
fewer courtiers were willing to risk their reputation by endeavouring to access the king
through the channel of that powerless mistress. Thus the mistress might have left without
strong supporters in the court and indeed become a powerless.
What is the most important in these representations on the power and influence of the studied
women is not the notion that they used some influence. The most dangerous aspect in these
representations is the range of the power they used over the king and the representations on
the means of their influence. This could be used – intentionally or unintentionally – to test the
monarch’s authority.
Representations of the sexual control used by the official mistresses and the large amount of
mistresses in the royal harem as well as their suspicious background and questionable social
status conveyed an image of a French majesty who could not control his sexual desires. In the
eighteenth century certain virility was an integral part of masculinity, as we can see in the
endeavours of George II to establish an image of himself as gallant107. However, the inability
to control one’s corruptive passions and desires was essentially a weakness of female sex.
Descriptions of the licentiousness of the king weakened his public image by questioning his
manhood since he did not seem to be able to restrain himself. And this lack of manhood
seemed to call into question his abilities as a sovereign. The king appeared feminized. He was
emasculated when his mistress seized his royal power by taking control over his sexuality and
sexual desires.
106
This notion include such a wide debate fuelled by Jürgen Habermas’ Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit.
Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft (1962) that I am not intending to tackle the
theme in this paper.
107
See, for example, Hervey 1848b, 97 “But the Queen [Caroline of Ansbach] knowing the vanity of her
husband’s [George II] temper, and that he must have some woman for the world to believe his mistress, wisely
suffered one to remain in that situation […]”; Walpole 1822a, 154 “His other passions were, Germany, the
army, and women. Both the latter had a mixture of parade in them: […]”. See also, Hervey 1848b, 82.
Also, according to these representations the power of mistresses was based on the
exploitation of the kings’ weaknesses. Thus their exercise of power was not only informal but
also selfish and illegal or even despotic and thus could be considered as unintentionally
perilous or outright malicious.
These representations and images inevitably eroded the divine aura of the majesty by
demonstrating that the king by the grace of God was not better or more honorable man than
any other, perhaps quite the opposite. The king was fooled and subjugated as easily as or
even more easily than any other man since he lived his life in the corruptive luxury and
affectation of the royal court108. These debates in conjunction with the changes in the printing
trade paved way to changes in conceptions and practices of monarchy. Through the debates
on the royal mistresses agents in the courts and outside of them could convey and build
images on the courtly life, kingship and monarchy as an institution. These images could be
used to both help supporting conceptions on the prevailing political practices as legitimate as
well as to challenge their legitimacy. The means used in these debates could be very subtle
but since the royal mistresses were closely joined to their royal lover’s person the debates and
even every silly anecdote about their life and characteristics did have an influence in the
king’s image as well. The whole foundation of the legitimate monarchical rule changed when
the distance between the ruler and the ruled diminished and the monarch started to become
more familiar and earthly in the eyes of their subjects, and in this process the debates on the
royal mistresses did have great importance.
108
During the eighteenth century the view about courtly life as corrupted became more and more popular and
contested. See, for example, Graham 2000, 78, 112; Chisick 1997, 125 – 126; Furniss 2007, 600; Hont 2006,
380, 384, 406.