While looking through lists of subversive figures in history one of the names that kept coming up was Cardinal Richelieu. My knowledge of Cardinal Richelieu was limited to the character played by Tim Curry in the Three Musketeers movie. After looking at a couple of articles it seemed there was a difference of opinion about him. Some viewed him as a subversive tyrant and others saw him as the right man in the right place at the right time.
I decided that I would dive in deeper and read a book about him to see how I would feel. I selected this book. Blanchard noted that the queen once said of Richelieu “Hd is utterly depressed when fortune is contrary to him, but when wind is in his sails, he is worse than a dragon.”
Richelieu was not the first born son in his family. That meant he would not inherit his father’s property. It meant he would have to make his own way in the world. He made it to the highest level of power in France. He had a strong ally in the king of France but he also had many enemies within the King’s court.
One of the things that struck me the most is how often he tried to resign while he was the king’s minister. On several occasions during his tenure he tendered his resignation but the king always refused. Either this was well crafted and cynical done to retain and perhaps usurp more power or Richelieu may actually have been willing to walk away from power.
The dynamics of 17th century France were full of political intrigue filled with assassination attempts and executions. One such occasion was when the King took ill and his death seemed imminent. Blanchard writes
”In the heavy atmosphere of the dying king’s bedroom everyone had more on their mind than just the mere thought of losing a loved one. Based on multiple testimonies from courtiers and officers present on the scene there has been little doubt that these dramatic hours were also a time of intense plotting and maneuvering.”
Richelieu had his escape from France planned for if the king had died his powerful enemies would have gained power. If this happened he most likely would have been killed. The king recovered and Richelieu was safe for the time being.
Several times in the book it talks about Richelieu’s network of spies and informants. Unfortunately the book does not provide the level of detail I was hoping for about how this network operated.
On one occasion Richelieu had a man imprisoned for more than a decade without ever charging him with a crime. Blanchard notes:
“For Richelieu exceptional circumstances justified this kind of action. While justice requires authentic proof, things are not the same when the state is concerned because in that case what is the result of pressing conjecture must be deemed sufficiently proven.”
Indeed Richelieu “professed a sharp distinction between the realm of human feelings and that of the state.”
Overall this was a good book that provided me with details about Cardinal Richelieu. I think he was very much a man of his times and perhaps his actions would have been different if he was alive today. I give this book 3 out of 5 stars.
Cardinal Richelieu has been hailed as a great statesman and as a subversive authoritarian. Depending on who you talk to he was a man needed to strengthen the monarchy in France, or he was a tyrant seeking personal power. Next week I will have a book review that may shed more light on Cardinal Richelieu.
When Lenin was working on his major writing projects he would often pace across the room formulating the ideas that he would write down by saying them out loud. Once he had the idea for what he wanted to write he would often repeat the idea to Nadezhda Krupskaya, who would provide feedback. Once this process was complete he would then write the ideas down.
Here is an AI rendering of what that might have looked like when he was drafting What is to be Done.
This month this community will focus on political subversion. What is subversion? When is it justified? What is the interplay between subversion and agitation? These are some of the topics to be discussed this month.
“If we are trying to account for mobilization, we have to ask, under what conditions do outraged forms of knowing lead to social mobilizations and movements? So awareness alone does not suffice, and neither does outrage.”
Judith Butler
