La Grande Paura - The Great Fear

Saint Sebastian - patron saint of homosexuals

It was while researching the subject of sexual crime for my upcoming novel, The Mascherari, that I came across a period of repression that swept Late Medieval / Early Renaissance Italy.  This relatively unknown wave of persecutions and executions took place in 15th century Florence but also to a lesser extent in Venice. This phenomenon, which targeted men of homosexual disposition was known as la grande paura, The Great Fear.

To put this Great Fear in context, consider that during the period 1432 to 1502 in Florence, it has been estimated that as many as 17000 individuals were incriminated at least once for sodomy with 3000 convicted.  This is no small figure for a city with a then population of less than 50000.

The Great Fear took place at a time when Florence lay vulnerable following a number of repeated plague attacks. The Black Death of 1348 had swept away as many as 80000 Florentines in a population that was then 120000.  Serious plague outbreaks followed in 1363, 1364 and later in 1417, 1423/1424 and 1430.  In 1410, the population fell to its lowest, probably sparking fears about population numbers, and further consolidating any non-procreative sexual acts as threats to the city’s dwindling numbers.

But the rise in prosecutions can be attributed to more than just dwindling population numbers. In short, the Great Fear was fear of God's wrath.

Sodomy in Late Medieval Italy

In medieval parlance, sodomy was a broad term which for the Church, encompassed not only anal sex practices, but also masturbation, and any form of sexual activity – fellatio being an example – which did not lead to procreation.

In the 14^th and 15^th century, medieval Italy was no stranger to heterosexual anal sex. This practice was performed consciously between couples to avoid pregnancy.  For this reason, it was frowned upon by the Catholic Church for whom the sole purpose of sex was procreation.

But more vile in the eyes of the Catholic Church, was the sodomy inherent in homosexuality. This “abominable sin” was greatly feared because it posed the threat of inviting divine wrath.  While the term sodomy denounced any sexual acts that were deemed, then, as contra natura, or “contrary to nature”, it was usually the conspicuous act between two men which came to mind most of the time when people spoke the word.

Florence – the Great Sodom

The city of Florence was once considered as the modern Sodom. For much of the 14^th and 15^th century, Florentines more than their other Italian counterparts, had a reputation for engaging in what was then termed as the game in the behind. Venice, too, saw a rise in same-sex liaisons in the 15^th century but this surge was thought to have sprung from Florence.

The Spread of the Great Fear

The rising intolerance towards homosexuals can almost be likened to the recent modern intolerance that took place in the late 1980s during which homosexuals were scapegoated for a raging and incurable disease which confounded physicians. Just as the spread of AIDs would focus the modern psyche on an “offending” subculture, so too did the scourge of bubonic plague experienced in the early 15^th century bring about the scapegoating of homosexuals.

Bernardino di Siena

In the early 1420s, a particular religious preacher is notable for his spread of paranoia and his call to action against homosexuals. This man, Bernardino di Siena, preached at length in Siena and then later in Florence.

In short, Bernardino di Siena blamed sodomites for causing the plague. He believed that the plague was sent by God as punishment for the sins of sodomy. He also blamed population losses to sodomites’ apathy towards women, their reluctance to marry and their sterile sexual practices. “You don’t understand that this is the reason you have lost half your population over the last twenty-five years. Tuscany has the fewest people in any country in the world, solely on account of this vice,” he said.

In 1424, Bernardino di Siena launched a sermon in Florence during which he said, “For if they don’t marry they become sodomites. Make this a general rule: when you see a grown man in health who doesn’t have a wife, you can take this as an evil sign about him, especially if he hasn’t chosen for spiritual reasons to live in chastity.”  His remarks had a profound effect well into the later part of the century, in that most men of all ages who were later implicated in sodomy appear to have been unmarried.

While Bernardino can be applauded for denouncing such practices as the pimping of young boys by their fathers – often to procure themselves with privileges from the abducting party – or for warning parents about the potential dangers faced by their sons in a city where rape of boys was common, he nevertheless remains a disturbing figure for his stirring of hatred towards those men whose only crime was to favor other men.  In particular Bernardino painted sodomites as unstable, selfish and dangerous.  As explained earlier, he attributed anything that was unpredictable in the human experience – including the plague, wars and floods – to sodomy.

In his diatribes against what he called “feminised” men, he went as far as scolding mothers for dressing-up their sons to be too attractive.  He clearly suffered from an anxiety about gender distinctions. “They’re the beautiful color of hyacinth, these boys of yours become girls. Shame on you, fathers and mothers! [..] don’t send them out spruced up like maidens!” or even “Oh Silly, foolish woman, it appears you make your son look like yourself, so that to you he’s quite becoming: ‘Oh, isn’t he the handsome lad!’ and even ‘Isn’t he the pretty girl!’ “

His misogynistic beliefs also saw him advise mothers to lock up their sons indoors and only let out their daughters: he believed that even if their daughters were raped, it was “less evil” and therefore less offending to God then sodomy perpetrated on their sons.

Bernardino also accused Tuscans of being too lenient towards sodomites.  While in Florence, he praised examples of justice meted out to sodomites in other parts of Italy. He described how a man convicted of sodomy in Verona (then part of the Venice Republic) had been quartered and his limbs hung from the city gates; he noted that in both Genoa and Venice, sodomites were burnt.  In Venice, he taunted, they really applied justice.

In April 1424, as part of Lent, Bernardino gave a series of speeches against sodomy in which he called onto people to spit whenever they heard sodomy mentioned: “If they won’t change their ways otherwise, maybe they’ll change when they’re ridiculed. Spit hard!” On April 9, he roused the people by shouting, “To the fire! They are all sodomites! And you are in mortal sin if you try to help them!”

Prosecution prior to the Great Fear

While punishments against sodomy had previously existed in Florence, as Bernardino expounded, they were not as harsh as those in Venice.  The nature of the crime had long decided the conviction. For example, the rape of young boys or ‘giovanni’, was more severely punished than outright acts between two consenting male adults. The prosecution for a foreign man abusing local boys was even harsher.  Another consideration was whether the willing party was an ‘active’ or ‘passive’ partner, the ‘passive’ partner being usually fined. The amount of this fine rose with the boy’s age, reflecting a belief in the diminishing innocence of his act.  But for various social reason, it was often difficult to pursue certain individuals, and accusations did not often lead to punishment. To further cloud judicial matters, sodomy was well ingrained in every level of Florentine society including, no doubt, the higher levels of government.

Overall, prior to the 1430s, it appeared that sodomy did not attract much court attention.  According to Michael Rocke’s research of Florence judicial records dating from 1390 to 1410, only 33 persons were found convicted of cases involving sodomy, including 10 for attempting sodomy only. These cases dealt mostly on rape against young children. Very few individuals were condemned for consensual non-coercive relations. This was perhaps what Bernardino di Siena had termed as ‘lenient’.

The Signori di Notte’s Repression

In 1432, shortly after Bernardino’s inflamed sermons, the Florence regime finally appointed an institution, the Office of the Night, to “root out” sodomy.  This time, it was declared, there would be no lenience. The Office of the Night existed from 1432 to 1502 during which it administered a pervasive repression regime, targeting homosexuals.  In each year of the last four decades of the 15^th century, an average of 400 people were implicated and 55 to 60 condemned for homosexual relations. Again this number is astounding considering the population at the time.

It was believed that the exercise of justice against sodomites would help appease God and prevent his wrath. Officials asserted that in such way, “the city and its upright citizens may be freed from all commotion, wars ended, plague abolished, enemy plots curbed” and so on.

The Officers of the Night operated through secret denunciations, calling onto the public to make accusations for which they did not require proof. As an incentive, accusers were offered financial rewards, calculated as a proportion of the convicted sodomite’s fine. Accusations were dropped in a box or tamburi affixed to churches in Florence and several nearby towns.  As would be expected, this system was not flawless. It was thought to lead to false accusations especially between enemies or between those still grieving old disputes.

The Night Officers also employed spies who ferreted out information and made their own accusations. Penalties ranged from various levels of fines to exile, interdiction from office, and at worst, execution.

Prosecutions in Venice

In Venice, the fear of sodomy was so great that the government body who took charge of prosecuting those suspected of homosexuality was no other than the same body of men entrusted with State security. This group of men, The Council of Ten, had enormous power which by 1430, equalled that of the Senate.

The so called Consiglio Dei Dieci were tasked with three main responsibilities: the peace and security of the Republic; the Venetian coinage; and the prevention of moral corruption, including sodomy.

In Venice, the punishment for sodomy was great, ranging from exile, maiming or burning.

As I found while researching for my novel, The Mascherari, the insidious powers of the Consiglio Dei Dieci often extended beyond the law and cannot be underestimated. The following case clearly exemplifies this idea.

In 1406 to 1407 a large group of homosexuals, including a number of young nobles and clergymen, were discovered by the Signori di Notte in Venice. Because the moral crime was serious and the penalty was burning, the Council of Ten stepped in.  However it was found that 16 or 17 Venetians from within the group were from the highest patrician families and so, the Council of Ten suppressed evidence and reduced the number of those executed to a minimum.

Still The Council of Ten made a concerted effort to “root out” the evil of sodomy.  For example, in 1455, it decreed that a certain number of places were to be placed under police surveillance since they were gathering places for sodomites. This included the porch of the Santa Maria Mater Domini church in the district of Santa Croce.

Again in 1460, the Council of Ten ordered physicians to send a report to the Council within 3 days after treating any man or woman whose anus had been damaged by sodomy…

But according to Rocke, the prosecutions seen in Florence far exceeded those in any other city on record, either in Italy or in Europe. In Venice for example, from 1426 to 1500, at a time roughly equivalent to the tenure of Florence’s Office of the Night, authorities prosecuted only 411 individuals and from 1406 to 1500, they convicted only 268.  In Genoa, only 5 persons were convicted from 1444 to 1500 while in Palermo, an estimated 100 men were executed for homosexual sodomy from 1567 to 1640.

Clearly the wave of repression experienced in Florence was unparalleled and remains a fascinating albeit disturbing subject of study.

Even more disturbing, at least for those who are more progressively minded, is that Bernardino di Siena, who actively preached against witchcraft and sodomy during the 15^th century, is today a Catholic Saint.

___________________________________

A fantastic source of historical information for a subject that is given scant attention, Michael Rocke’s Forbidden Friendships – Homosexuality and Male Culture in Renaissance Florence was a valuable read for both my novel writing research and beyond. 

The Myth of Medusa and Female-Assisted Patriarchy

Perseus and the Gorgon

by Laurent-Honore Marqueste (1903)

Our society is quick to denounce the horrifying decrees promulgated against Afghan women by the Taliban. We lament the unjust punishment of raped women in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We cry in outrage when we hear of yet another victim of gang-rape in India. The beliefs and mechanisms that underpin the appalling treatment of women in many parts of the world are many and varied. They cannot be outlined here and that is not the purpose of this post.

This post is about patriarchy. Yet it is not your standard feminist post. Far from it. It is about denouncing the women who assist patriarchy.

How does a woman in India assist patriarchy? 
By privileging a boy's education. By telling her daughter through actions or words that she is worthless. By raising sons who feel entitled to better treatment than girls. By allowing a son to grow up believing that he is a little king, and that he deserves more than women, or worse, can do whatever he likes to a woman, including beating her to a pulp or savagely raping her with his male friends.

How does a woman in Africa assist patriarchy? 
By perpetuating the cruel practice of female circumcision. In parts of Africa, especially Somalia, the women are indoctrinated to believe that a daughter's worth for marriage and her chastity depends upon her being circumcised. It is the women who take an active, aggressive role in circumcising their daughters. It is women who tell their uncircumcised daughters or daughters-in-law that they are filthy and not fit to be a wife unless they have been brutally mutilated.

How does a woman in any part of the world, including the secular Western world, assist with patriarchy? 
By happily labeling another woman a 'slut' when it appears that this other woman naturally solicits male attention. It is often the case that such a label is born of envy or insecurity. Its true crime, is that it publicly invites the social scorn of their sister, while supporting the patriarchal belief that sexually desirable or sexually active women have no place in this world, and that only a man has rights over his pleasure and sexuality.

How does a woman in any work place or organisation assist patriarchy? 
By undermining her own female co-workers or potential female employees because she, without realising it, has long internalised social beliefs that certain skills are best acquired by the male gender. There is a doubt that exists within her about her own ability as a woman to master certain technical or other traditionally male-dominated skills, and it is this internal doubt that she projects upon her sisters such that she comes to undermine them even where they are perfectly capable.
How else?
By doing what many men do so well: that is, by assuming that her female co-workers could not have achieved what they have on merit; that if they have at all delivered, it must have come primarily through some male aid or worse, through the practice of some female guile to acquire the assistance of others while doing nothing herself.

These are all forms of female-assisted patriarchy and female-assisted sexist attitudes. They serve the outdated male beliefs that women are not as important, valuable, skilled and trustworthy as men. They reduce women to manipulative, unfit and beguiling monsters. They reduce women to the gorgon, Medusa.

Do you know the tale of Medusa?

Yes, you must remember the Greek tale of Medusa. She was this hideous female with snake-like streams for hair and one look upon her face was thought to petrify the onlooker such that he or she turned to stone. It was Perseus who, with the help of Athena, managed to kill Medusa.

But do you know the real tale of Medusa?

Before she became a gorgon, Medusa was a beautiful girl. Her beauty was such that even the goddess Athena envied it.

Athena soon found out something horrible. She discovered that the God Poseidon had raped Medusa. Being enamored of Poseidon herself, she saw it fit to punish Medusa. She turned her into a gorgon. Perhaps Athena thought that it was Medusa's fault if Poseidon had not been able to control his legendary urges and added Medusa to his long list of sexual conquests. But never mind that Poseidon was a serial rapist, Athena cast the entire blame on Medusa. In so doing, she no doubt appeased her fractured ego and took her revenge on a rival. And so it is when insecure women blame other women: they assist patriarchy.

Just like her Indian and Pakistani sisters who receive no justice for rape, Medusa was turned into a monster whose fate was to be reviled and avoided. Besides, it is impossible to engage a gorgon in conversation if one is soon cast to stone upon looking at her. Medusa was fated for social isolation. There is a word for that. Ostracism. Ostracism was her ultimate punishment. Even today, ostracism is a familiar mode of punishment for women who dare raise the ire of their jealous sisters. When the word is out against them, ostracised women are ignored, unfriended and perpetually removed from invitation lists.

Returning to our Greek legend... Our patriarchal hero, Perseus, had sworn to kill Medusa, this monster who inspired so much fear. And so it is when women are seen as nothing but monsters.

Not content with having turned Medusa into a gorgon, Athena also took it upon herself to assist Perseus in killing her.

There are many forms of female-assisted patriarchy but the one that really stood out for me was the story of Medusa. I always felt sorry for her and the unjust punishment meted out to her. When I look at the image in this post, the photo of Marqueste's sculpture, it represents for me all that is ugly and horrifying about the treatment of women at the hands of patriarchy.  I feel only pity for Medusa. Her misery could have been avoided if a certain ocean deity could have learnt better manners as a child and then, as an adult, kept his staff in place where it belonged (and I don't mean his trident). But without a doubt, her misery could have been avoided if Athena had not been so spiteful about Poseidon's slight and if she had not been so intent on casting the fault upon Medusa.

Can you think of other ways in which women assist patriarchy? I can think of many. In fact I can think of instances where women have turned out to be even more patriarchal than men.

How do we stop this? Because ultimately, whether we like it or not, some women are part of a vicious cycle that perpetuates patriarchal behaviors.

So what can we do? It is hard. Education is a big factor. We need to raise educated, strong women who are confident and not embarrassed with archaic modes of thought. At a social level, we educate them to shun traditional male-favouring attitudes. They must, in turn, not grow to favour their sons over their daughters. But most importantly, we give them confidence in themselves as individuals. We teach them the joy of being women, women who can overcome their insecurities. We give them a belief that life is filled with opportunities and we give them these opportunities whenever it is in our power and in their best interests.

We teach them to give, just as we expect them to be spiritually generous toward their own sisters.

We teach them to protect their own sisters, rather than fear them in the same way that generations of men have feared Medusa.

Shadow of the Wind - The Movie

This post is the creative birth child of a desperate The Shadow of the Wind fan calling for a movie production that will bring to life Julian Carax and Daniel Sempere; calling for a visual masterpiece that will stir images of a Gothic Barcelona stifled in Francoism.

Please indulge my frivolities and please do not scorn me if I cast someone that you disagree with. So without further ado, let's get this show on the road!

I had heard that The Others' director Pedro Amenabar was a contender for The Shadow of the Wind but my personal choice is for visionary Jean Pierre Jeunet. To understand why I favor Jeunet, one has to look at the standout features of The Shadow of the Wind and how they compare favorably with Jeunet's past films.

To begin, the novel is overshadowed by an ominous atmosphere which is both the result of the Spanish Civil war's aftermath and a tragic mystery centering around an author's life. The main character, Daniel, grows up in an almost surreal community replete with dark realities. If you have seen City of Lost Children, you will understand that Jeunet is no stranger to nightmarish realms.

Coupled with this shadowy setting, is the Sempere bookshop and home, which sees many visitors, and where many heart warming exchanges between the characters take place. This sense of a gathered community, depicted with some humor, much caricature, and always much heart, resounds throughout the novel and is a reminder of what Jeunet has and can achieve. It recalls the delightful Brasserie gatherings in the masterpiece, Amelie just as it evokes the band of eccentric social outcasts who form a family in Micmacs.

And then last but not least, we have the core of the novel; the slow, intensely paced and extremely well-written unraveling of its mystery which involves quite a number of characters. Again, I cannot think of a more adept director than Jeunet. As evidenced by A Very Long Engagement, he does an excellent job at juggling a complex historical mystery together with judicious use of flashbacks, while still keeping the audience's fascination for the many and varied characters, who due to cinema's nature, can only ever possess limited screen time. For this same reason, I am also adamant that Jeunet should prepare The Shadow of the Wind's film adaptation. During the screenwriting exercise, he may find it enriching to collaborate with the book's author, Carlos Ruiz Zafón, who is also a former screenwriter.

So that was the heavy part. Now, for the acting cast!

                                                   

Clara Barceló
Bella Heathcote
Bella's enormous doe-like eyes, her delicate grooming, and fragile beauty are perfect for the role of the tragically vain and blind Clara. Heathcote may not agree to nudity scenes which is unfortunate but her youthful porcelain skin is a real production value for this role.

Fermin
Colin Farrell
I have complete trust in Colin Farrell to deliver what is the most exciting, endearing and entertaining character in the entire novel. He is believable as an ex spy and someone who would survive much of the brutality that Fermin survives. Fermin is a tad too skinny to be embodied by Farrell but method acting might remedy this detail.

Daniel's father - Mr Sempere
Antonio Banderas
Perhaps as a result of his apparent redundancy to the whole mystery and to the novel's plot, Mr Sempere was the most touching and kindest character in the story. His entire meaning was contained in the endless love and patience he gave his son. I think Antonio Banderas, especially through his familiar accented voice, has the ability to project much heart and damn it, it is his duty as a fellow Spaniard to Zafón, that he fill this noble role.

Julián Carax
Robert Pattinson
Maybe because I've seen him play a vampire freak too many times and because his beautiful face would serve the novel's tragedy interests only too well (if you know what I mean), I am unable to shake off the idea that Robert Pattinson should play the role of fated author, Julian Carax. I think Nuria Montfort's complete adulation would also seem believable given Pattinson's charming looks. Finally I like the simmering intensity that Pattinson is able to project on screen and the fact that he can appear both menacing and innocent. I think the production values are evident but he would need to dye his hair black.

Daniel Sempere
James Franco
As with many novels (but not all), I was not particularly attached to the main character who I mainly conceived as a vehicle for experiencing this amazing story. Still, the lead cast needs to be likable and draw audiences. I chose James Franco because of his audience appeal and because I did enjoy his performance in the latest Oz movie. But mostly I chose him because 1. he is believable as the son of Antonio Banderas which I've cast as Mr Sempere and 2. I can imagine-as desired by the novel-that someone might find him slightly resembling of Pattinson whom I've previously cast as Carax. Overall his dark physique works well but he is still someone I can imagine being punched around several times in a pathetic way. Finally he would be believable as a coward who eventually redeems himself.

Miguel
Mark Ruffalo vs Jude Law
Infinitely wise, self-sacrificing, idealistic, placing friendship before love, Sigmund Freud fan and downright too-good-to-be-true character...yet he was one of my favorite characters in the novel. His motives are so beautiful that one wants to cry or just scream, "are-you-for-real?" The pathos that this character generates needs to be handled with great care. We need a naturalistic delivery. Someone who can move us and create tear-jerking moments while remaining seemingly aloof and collected. Both Mark Ruffalo and Jude Law would be amazing. They would each lend themselves well to the role of wasted-tuberculosis-sufferer-burning-the-hours-to-raise-money-for-a-friend, but Ruffalo looks more Spanish and has earned philanthropic credentials from his latest role in Now You See Me.

Sophie Carax
Audrey Tautou
Why? Firstly because she is French, like the character but also because Jeunet made her a gamine celebrity through Amelie and hopefully he can un-typecast her with this more daring role. And I think Tautou needs to be pushed a little, to go beyond her safe roles which she did in Dirty Pretty Things. Somewhat.

Penelope Aldaya
Anne Hathaway
There is a highly dramatic scene in The Shadow of the Wind that represents not only the culmination of a mystery's resolution but also, all that is cruel about a misogynistic, patriarchal society and one that is also still recovering from the horrors and senselessness of the Spanish civil war. This scene needs to be portrayed by someone whose suffering would leave us gutted. Someone whose doll-like beauty and short screen time would remove nothing from the attachment we feel towards her when she suffers her tragic fate. I have thought of her youthful features (Penelope is barely 17), her almond hair and the expert acting that this requires, and have settled on Anne Hathaway. I know that Hathaway is much older but I think she might be able to pull it off with her hair lightened and worn loose. She also looks Spanish. Hathaway impeccably portrayed Fantine's suffering in Les Miserables and will no doubt shine as Penelope.

Beatrix Aguilar
Emma Stone
A striking red head with green eyes and beautiful skin. Someone who can also inspire fear and who one can imagine flirting with both older professors and danger. Someone feisty and sharp. I think Emma Stone works well here.

Francisco Javier Fumero
Ricardo Darín
A villain makes a film and needs to be well thought out. He requires stellar acting. Ever since I saw Argentinian actor, Ricardo Darín in The Secret in their Eyes, I have been under his spell. He would work splendidly as the charismatic yet sadistic and vengeful cop, Fumero. Darín's mature presence and astute gaze lend themselves well to the calculating Fumero. Darín is also believable as a dangerous law officer who has risen in the ranks to become both a feared and respected member of society.

Fumero's mother
Penelope Cruz
If you've seen Jamon, Jamon, Don't Move and To Rome with Love, you would know that no one does trashy foul mouth better than La Cruz. That she has the advantage of understanding Spanish cultural nuances to properly caricature this fascinating character is no understatement. No matter that she is strikingly beautiful, Cruz will no doubt successfully portray this social wannabe creature who spawns the devil himself. The villain's mother is so pivotal to a story that only a strong actress will do. Besides, it is only right that one of Spain's most beautiful women should become this devil's mother.

Don Frederico Flavia
Javier Bardem
It is only fair, given his titillating exposition as Silva in the latest Bond, that Javier Bardem should be given a chance to dress as he pleases from time to time. But seriously, I like the contrast between Bardem's threatening build à la No Country For Old Men, and the fragile, sensitive disposition of Frederico, the watchmaker. I also think this casting subverts the ostensibly macho, garlic-chewing and misogynistic role that Bardem took on years ago in Spain's glorious cinematic export, Jamon, Jamon. Finally, I think it would work well with Bardem's often high pitched voice and his ability to affect a sophisticated mannerism.

There are several characters who I've not yet cast, including the bitter Jorge Aldaya, his wealthy parents, Nuria Montfort and Julian's own father. Please feel free to leave comments about your casting thoughts for these, along with any suggestions you may have for the already cast characters.

While this has been a fictitious exercise, I am still entertaining the grand hopes that The Shadow of the Wind will be shot some day. 

Zafón - you, who it has been said, have no intention of adapting your masterpiece for screen, I hope you understand my love for this book and my equal love of cinema. A cinematic adaptation of The Shadow of the Wind would not purport to be better-than or complementary to the book. It is an art in itself, a joy of creation and a challenge to master. The rendering of historical Barcelona would be an artistic director's dream. Who would not enjoy working on such a masterpiece? I am certain that many actors would be overjoyed to interpret one of your fascinating characters. Why deprive them of that pleasure? And why rob millions of people who actively prefer cinema to reading, or who cannot read for that matter, of the pleasure of seeing this story on screen?

Candeau Drawings

Bourgeois Ladies

When I was a little girl and living in France, I stumbled upon gorgeous sketches. These had been drawn by some distant aunt or cousin of my grandfather, at the turn of the 20th century.

I can barely remember the artists' names but these drawings were so lovely that I wondered why they were packed away in a dusty folder, together with my grandfather's genealogy files and century old research documents.

Mes Petits Bretons - an homage to Brittany

Bretons youth in traditional costume, dancing over the sea 
with the outline of a Carnac dolmen on the horizon

My grandfather, Yves Candeau, probably noted my intense interest in his genealogy work because upon his last visit to Australia, he left all his original jaundiced files at my parents' home. The edited and digitised version of his work was copied multiple times, and shared with each of my relatives. But I had the privilege of seeing his old files in our lounge closet.

When I left home, I took with me Yves Candeau's files and the drawings that in my youth, I had longed to unveil.

This is what you see in this post and I'm so happy to be able to finally share them.

The words "Je pense a vous souvent" (I think of you often) 

appear on this lovely Art Nouveau sketch

Detail from Mes Petits Bretons (my ultimate favourite)


It goes without saying that if you wish to digitally use or reference any of these drawings (and any personal photos I have previously posted in this blog) please do not do so without my permission. On the other hand, any reproduction and printing of these drawings is out of the question. These drawings remain copyright and belong to Yves Candeau's descendants. Thank you. :)

D'Artagnan in Nantes

One cannot pass through the city of Nantes in Brittany, France without spending some time visiting the magnificent Cathedral of Saint Peter and Saint Paul.

The back of Cathedral of Saint Peter and Saint Paul

While the building was destroyed several times, including during WWII and following a major fire in 1972, the cathedral's foundation dates from 1434.

The cathedral houses an awe inspiring Gothic interior together with an ornate tomb that Anne de Bretagne (aka, Duchess of Brittany, the richest woman in Europe in her time and twice Queen of France) once commissioned to honour her parents.

The tomb of Francis II and Margaret de Foix,

Parents of Anne of Brittany

But what held my interest while in Nantes was the political intrigue that supposedly took place at the front of this cathedral on September 5, 1661.

We are familiar with D'Artagnan from the famous novel, The Three Musketeers. While its author, Alexandre Dumas no doubt took many liberties with creating his character, what is certain is that the original D'Artagnan was also a highly skilled man-of-arms attached to the royal court.

D'Artagnan served Louis XIV as Captain of the Musketeers of the Guards. Created in 1622, the Musketeers of the Guards were entrusted with protecting the King outside his palace. They were skilled with fighting both on foot and on horseback.

D'Artagnan had a long career in espionage. Louis XIV shared many delicate secrets with him. One such secret was that the King had had enough of his finance minister, Nicolas Fouquet.

Fouquet, an admirer of grand architecture had recently spared no expense in building his lavish Chateau Vaux-le-Vicomte. Upon completion of this palace in 1661, Fouquet held dazzling celebrations where supposedly every guest was granted a horse. Even the great poet La Fontaine and the playwright, Moliere, good friends of Fouquet were invited at the inauguration, where a Moliere play was performed while an impressive dinner and fireworks show took place.

Chateau Vaux-le-Vicomte

Of course there was no reason for Louis XIV to feel outdone by the beauty of Fouquet's new palace, or by the extravagant outlays of his minister. After all, hadn't our Sun King himself built the incomparable Chateau de Versailles?

Actually, no. At this time, Louis XIV had not yet expanded Versailles palace to the level of grandeur it would have for years to come. That feat would come much later, starting in 1669 and one can certainly imagine where the inspiration came from... Therefore, back in 1661, Louis XIV felt severely upstaged.

But circumstances were in his favour.

At the time, the man in charge of tax reforms, a certain Jean-Baptiste Colbert made an embezzlement attack on Fouquet. This was partly to secure himself the post of finance minister, which he eventually did take. Vexed as he was by Chateau Vaux-le-Vicomte, Louis XIV naturally chose to attribute Fouquet's magnificent creation to his evident misappropriation of the royal treasury. In short, Jean-Baptiste Colbert's accusation was welcomed since it allowed our 22 year old king to appease his wounded ego by giving him an opportunity to do away with Fouquet.

Three weeks after visiting Vaux for the inaugurations, Louis XIV left for Nantes, kindly inviting Fouquet with him. In doing so, the king took Fouquet away from his own entourage who may have protected him. His guard down, and certain of having secured himself the king's favour, Fouquet never once suspected that D'Artagnan was in Nantes with his own royal mission...

On September 5, 1661, in front of the Cathedral of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, Fouquet was arrested by Captain D'Artagnan.

Too bad our musketeer was on the wrong side of history.

It turned out that Fouquet had built part of the Chateau Vaux-le-Vicomte especially for Louis XIV and had sought to flatter his king in an attempt to become his advisor. The king's attack was unjustified and in fact during his trial, Fouquet held the French public's sympathy, including that of poet La Fontaine. Fouquet's trial was in breach of many forms of justice and lasted almost three years. It became known as the "trial of the century". The court finally decided on eternal banishment but King Louis had the entire judge panel replaced in an attempt to reach a death sentence. He clearly wanted Fouquet eliminated. Again the court decided on solitary confinement. Faced with this, King Louis dictated cruel conditions, stipulating that Nicolas Fouquet was not to be permitted to read nor write and the soldiers guarding him were not to talk to him on penalty of death.

Our misled D'Artagnan was assigned to guard Nicolas Fouquet for four years until his final life imprisonment. To our musketeer's defense, it is said that upon receiving his orders from the king, d'Artagnan wept, so torn was he between his duty to Louis XIV and his friendship for Fouquet which persisted months later. It was also said that d'Artagnan was never able to forgive himself.

Nicolas Fouquet, a man who before his arrest was presumably the most wealthy and powerful person in France, suffered a terrible unjust fate. It is said that his cruel punishment resembles that of the Man in the Iron Mask and this has led some authors to trace the identity of Alexandre Dumas' Man in the Iron Mask to Nicolas Fouquet.