a little drier then the subtitle would suggest but interesting ( )

My main reason for reading this was for the opening section on Madame de Brinvilliers of whom I’ve been fascinated by for several years now. I was, therefore, disappointed with the short amount of space given to La Brinvilliers, especially when two whole chapters in this book have next to nothing to do with the Affair of the Poisons.

The two chapters in question feature irrelevant info like this:

“A performance of Alceste then took place in the marble courtyard, converted for the evening into a sumptuous theatre, decorated with orange trees in tubs on marble pedestals and lit by crystal chandeliers. Five days later a concert was held in the Primi Visconti observed that though the King occasionally appeared relaxed in private, he would instinctively straighten his bearing and assume a more dignified expression if he thought there was any chance he could be glimpsed through an open door.”

Louis XIV’s court and his mistresses are a backdrop and it’s pure filler material to devote one chapter to his court and another to his mistresses. Granted, Madame de Montespan features in the Affair of the Poisons, but we don’t need to know her life story; focus on her involvement with anything poison-related.

I am interested in Louis XIV and France’s Bourbon kings, as I am with the likes of La Montespan, Madame de Maintenon, et al., but when I choose to read a book on a specific topic, I expect it to be about that specific topic, not about info that has little or nothing to do with it.

Going back to my main point of interest, namely Madame de Brinvilliers, I feel this could’ve been much better presented. As someone who likes their history presented chronologically, I don’t like that it opens with La Brinvilliers’s trip to the scaffold.

Hugh Stokes’s bio on La Brinvilliers might’ve been published in 1912, but it’s in-depth and lively detail is a much more entertaining read than this book. He puts quotes from La Brinvilliers’s torture session and trial in dialogue, whereas Ms Somerset uses reported speech, which makes for passive prose. Very dry.

I realise, of course, that Stokes’s tome was all about La Brinvilliers, so I didn’t expect too many pages dedicated to her in this book; however, as already mentioned, it could’ve been expanded if those two irrelevant chapters were cut.

I did, at least, glean a couple of new things about La Brinvilliers's life that weren’t featured in Stokes’s bio, as certain topics – namely incest – would’ve been too taboo in the 1910s.

After the two irrelevant chapters we get on with the Affair of the Poisons. I was interested in this period of history before I started reading this book, particularly in La Voisin, and therefore expected to be engaged throughout. Sadly, I found it very hard going.

With so much detail, it proved an exhausting read, and I found it hard to remember who was whom. It doesn’t help that the author refers to people by their title one minute and by the first name the next. With so many people involved, this really confuses matters. Also, filler material keeps creeping in, which slows an already slow-paced narrative.

While I enjoyed this in parts, it was overall too dry and descriptive with way too much irrelevant information. ( )

An almost-too-thorough blow-by-blow account of the Affair of the Poisons, a scandal at the heart of the French court in the late 1670s and early 1680s. Lots (and lots, and lots) of names and dates and crimes and accusations to keep track of, but if you're keen on the topic and willing to wade through it all, there's quite a fascinating story in here. ( )

Great read ( )

Very good; reliable, well-written and documented. I mention this book in my research blog:

http://www.blogger.com/publish-confirmation.g?blogID=3304407638943710859&pos... ( )