A Reconsideration of the Meaning of Royal Ritual in Eighteenth-Century France

Abstract

K ingship in early modern France involved numerous royal ceremonies and rituals imbued with social and political meaning. Through these ceremonies, a mix of the traditional and the improvised, the bonds between the king and his people were reified and reinforced. But in an era of dramatic change, like the eighteenth century, how should we interpret these sometimes ancient rituals? Historians have painstakingly dissected the political and social dynamics of the eighteenth century to better understand the turmoil that resulted in the French Revolution of , leading to the dissolution of the Bourbon monarchy. What can an analysis of royal ritual contribute to our knowledge of the political and cultural context of this period? In this well-written and meticulously researched book, Anne Byrne sets out to examine a series of grand royal ceremonies that took place in the mid-s, ceremonies that marked the end of the reign of Louis XV, who died of smallpox in , and the transfer of power to his grandson, Louis XVI. While uncertainty accompanied this important moment of transition from an unpopular king to a new monarch, Louis XVI’s accession to the throne offered a moment of hope and optimism to the French people, reflected in the outpouring of emotion that accompanied his coronation. Byrne places herself in the footsteps of revisionist historians who have questioned both the nature of absolutism and the desacralization of the French monarchy, two concepts that have long dominated our historical understanding of early modern French politics. Along with most historians today, Byrne rejects the notion of ‘an absolutely powerful king incrementally increasing his command of the land and people of France’ (p. ), instead adopting Joël Félix’s argument that absolutism ‘rested on the king’s claim to absolute power and functioned through collaboration’ (p. ), a tension that royal ceremonies highlight. While intentionalism and functionalism have dominated interpretations of royal ritual, Byrne questions the utility of these concepts: ‘both link ritual to power — the power to persuade or the more subtle and complex assertion and enactment of new legal forms of royal power. Such power operates in a unidirectional fashion, projected from actor to audience’ (p. ). Dissatisfied by the assumption of passivity on the part of the audience, she seeks to understand the meanings that all participants brought to and took from these ceremonies, which, although political in nature, also depended on social collaboration.