About book The Serpent And The Moon: Two Rivals For The Love Of A Renaissance King (2005)
I seem to be having an unlucky run of bad or at least so-so books recently. I went into this one optimistically. Whilst I’ve been an aficionado of the Renaissance for many years, my main focus has been Renaissance England under the Tudor dynasty, I’m not so knowledgeable about the Renaissance in the other great European powers of the time, having only a working knowledge as these figures interacted with Tudor England. The Serpent and the Moon is more specifically marketed as a dual biography of Catherine de’ Medici, wife and queen of Henri II, and Diane de Poitiers, Henri’s mistress, and I was looking forwards to learning more about these historical figures too, both of whom were key figures of the age.First, half of the book is spent discussing events before we even get to the dynamic of Diane and Catherine together with Henri. Now, I understand a certain amount of setting up; the need to explain how these individuals came to their famous circumstances, discussion of childhood and upbringing, and setting the scene so that the reader can better understand the world in which these figures moved. In the case of Diane, who was 18 years Henri’s senior, there’s a need to cover a whole other life she had before becoming Henri’s mistress – Diane was married, became a mother, and widowed all before her love affair with Henri. However, half the book felt like too much. Whilst I did get a better understanding of the sequence of events and the relationships involved in the French Renaissance court, it dragged on too long and too much unnecessary detail was given. Significant chunks of the book are devoted to what François I, Henri’s father, was doing, with very little mention of Catherine or Diane at all. After the second half things get going on the love triangle dynamic and we get into the meat of the biographies, but by this point my patience was worn a little thin from the first half, and the continuing detours and unnecessary details resulted in me actually skimming the more relevant second half. Henri’s death seemed covered very quickly and little page space seemed devoted to Catherine and Diane’s lives after his death. This was disappointing because the author seemed to be really building up to that moment, repeatedly telling us how Catherine’s motto was Hate and Wait and how she nursed her jealousy, waiting for a time when she could exact vengeance on Diane… only to have a very short discussion at the end about how Diane was forced to give up the crown jewels and her beloved chateau but everyone still kept visiting her and kept on pretty good terms and she and Catherine lived out the rest of their lives, the end. Is that it? I mean, I know the author can’t make up some horrible vengeance if there was none, but is there going to be no discussion of Catherine’s long and involved reign as the queen mother behind three French kings? The author devotes more time to Diane’s more obscure beginnings than she does to Catherine’s long and well-documented grip on power following Henri’s death. This was rather disappointing.Second, the author crosses that line in non-fiction history between the facts and inferring her own ideas of peoples’ thoughts and feelings and presenting them as fact with no disclaimer: “As [Catherine] bowed before [Henri], she caught her breath in awe and admiration”, and “Almost everyone who would dominate Catherine’s new life attended the ceremony, and she observed each of them shrewdly. She liked her father-in-law immediately, with his bold, handsome face, ready smile, his height and natural air of kingship”. Now, I’ve read non-fiction histories before that included imagined scenes, namely Cro-Magnon by Brian Fagan, and my current read of After the Ice by Steven Mithen, but in both cases the authors make it crystal clear what is fiction and what is fact, and draw a clearly marked line between them. It is poor objectivity in a history non-fiction to surmise the thoughts and feelings of historical personages and incorporate it into the text in a way that the unwary reader will assume it is fact. Unfortunately the author does it far too often in this book, particularly in respect to assuming love and good intentions from Diane’s side and jealousy and hatred from Catherine’s side.Speaking of which brings me to my third point about this book. It’s just too biased for my liking. In the author’s note at the beginning, Princess Michael of Kent assures the reader that “since I descend just as directly from Catherine de’ Medici as I do from Diane de Poitiers, I have no personal interest in damning one while glorifying the other”. However, in the same breath she adds; “I simply want to tell the story of a beautiful, cultured, and fascinating woman”, referring to Diane de Poitiers. Her Royal Highness opens the author’s note by openly stating her lifelong enthusiasm for Diane’s fashion sense and style of monochrome black and white. If I may put it bluntly, descending equally from two people does not automatically make one objective when writing about them. It is patently clear in The Serpent and the Moon that Princess Michael is biased in favour of Diane de Poitiers over Catherine de’ Medici; Diane, according to the book, is described as incomparably "beautiful","desirable", "rare", well-educated, noble, "honorable", "highly intelligent", cultured, gentle, and all round benevolent and wonderful, meanwhile Catherine is described as "fat, little Catherine", with "bulging eyes" and a "podgy mouth", "jealous", "resentful", "awkward", “not… remotely attractive…it would take a miracle for [Henri] to fall in love with her”, at best she is described as “clever” and “shrewd”, but whilst the author uses positive words to describe Diane’s smarts (intelligent, educated, cultured), suggesting openness and goodness, for Catherine she uses terms more associated with deviousness, calculation, and underhandedness (clever, and shrewd). Furthermore, Diane and Henri’s love is spun as pure, the chivalric ideal, noble, good, epic, and eternal. Diane’s quandary as a staunch Catholic tempting the king into sin is brushed aside. The author even asserts that Diane did not begin her relationship with Henri because he was the dauphin (later, king) for personal gain. Now, novice as I am on this topic it seems to me that there was a deep affection between the two as evidenced by Henri keeping Diane as his mistress from his late teens to the end of his life, even as Diane was 18 years older than him, and I’m sure the author is correct when she says that Diane would have been flattered by the attentions of the handsome young prince and after only having known marriage with a much older man previously enjoyed having a physical relationship with a vigorous younger man. But I don’t think I can buy into the idea that it was all noble, pure love on her part, with no thought of personal gain. Diane received extraordinary gifts of money, jewels, dresses, and estates from the king, and had many of her candidates promoted to office and in many cases directed the policy of the king in the ruling of France. I’m not convinced it was all noble everlasting love. I’m sure there must be more to Diane and Catherine than this. In a book that’s supposed to be an equal and objective biography of both Diane and Catherine, The Serpent and the Moon very much sings Diane’s praises whilst being less than enthusiastic about Catherine. In the end it just made me feel uncomfortable.Fourth, and finally, the book is indeed a popular history. It’s written as a simplistic narrative with very little analysis or deconstruction of the sources and evidence. Once or twice the author points out where she thinks other historians have made incorrect assertions about Diane, Henri, or Catherine, but it’s dealt with cursorily and unfortunately I was never treated to an in-depth critique, nor indeed an in-depth biography of these two women. Since I came to this book as a novice, I do walk away from it with a better understanding than I had, and also a better knowledge of the order of events, but no more than that. The writing style is competent but meanders with detours, and the bias is all too evident. So-so, but I probably won’t be turning to Princess Michael of Kent for my history non-fiction again. Not an authority I would trust or credit as a thorough historian.5 out of 10
The first half of The Serpent and the Moon mainly deals with Francois I's reign as king and has little to do with the love triangle. Frankly, the whole book itself hasn't much to do with the love triangle or "one of the great love stories of all time," but more to do with the political intrigue of Henri I and his father's reigns. Oh, and lest I forget, Henri, Diane, and both of their symbols, monograms, etc. I honestly don't know what the whole fascination of that was all about, but it showed up everywhere.On page 187 the princess tells us that it is a man's way of thinking that Diane wouldn't have become Henri's mistress if he hadn't become dauphin. I disagree, it is a realist's view, and frankly, I think it's fully possible that was how it started. Yes, maybe she was flattered by his attention too, but to consider having him as a lover in light of how much she was in his life growing up, it's a bit creepy. Oedipus comes to mind. I believe he was infatuated with her from a young age and it most likely progressed into love, for both of them. I envision her grabbing the chance at being the mistress of a king and being older, she knew how to mould and persuade him. Whether or not it was a true love story, I really don't know; I'm not sure anyone does and I don't care all that much.As many other reviewers have stated, there is an obvious bias. The readers are warned in the introduction, but even if you know that, there's still the possibility that the work as a whole might be neutral. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Maybe if it had only been a slight bias, I wouldn't have cared so much, but when an author heaps praise on one person and how they accomplish everything, and then turn around and bash someone else for the exact same thing. Well, that's just hypocrisy. From the book, the author would have you believe that Diane de Poitiers got to where she was merely by being a good, honest, gracious, and pious woman and Catherine de' Medici did it by being a cold, heartless, evil, spiteful person. I'm sorry but you cannot have climbed to the heights Diane did, especially in those times, without being conniving in one way or the other. I'm sure she did the same things Catherine did, so quit holding Diane up on a pedestal; she's really not a goddess, just a woman. Diane is a white light, Catherine is black as death and there isn't any grey between them for most of the book. By the end of the book I really took the "history" lightly, mainly that of these two women, more than anything else; it was just an unfair assessment. And with the author's snarky and catty remarks directed towards Catherine, saying she has a "fat little heart," well, that was just uncalled for. Then at the end, her words were so disgusting about Catherine's behavior towards Diane, saying how petty she was and she did things purely due to "feminine spite". Catherine could have done much worse to her but she didn't! Of course, Ms. Perfect D. was always so respectful and exemplary of Catherine. Give me a break. Maybe some of the things said in the book were true about both women, but then again, maybe not. Most is lost to history.If Princess Michael of Kent's plan was for me to sympathize and idolize Diane de Poitiers, as she does, it backfired. Now I don't ever care to ever hear about her again, and I love history of all kinds. On the other hand, I have already ordered two books about Catherine de' Medici from the library. Most likely the opposite of what she wanted. I honestly don't blame Catherine if she was bitter, who wouldn't be in that situation? Even if it was a different time, circumstance, and an arranged marriage? I refuse to believe Diane was this perfect being, a goddess, virtuous as can be, a victim - nobody is all these things and I don't know why the author cannot see any imperfections and insists on romanticizing her.Even though I hated how biased this book was, I still appreciate the amount of research this must have taken, it was fairly well-written in form, and there was loads of information. I'd only recommend this to Catherine haters, loathers, or serious dislikers. With the princess's flair for the dramatic and speculation on feelings and actions, she might want to focus on writing works of fiction instead. I have no desire to read anything by this author again.
Do You like book The Serpent And The Moon: Two Rivals For The Love Of A Renaissance King (2005)?
Vous voulez vous plonger dans le règne de François 1er et de Henri II ? Vous souhaitez connaitre les jalousies et les anecdotes au combien nombreuses entre Catherine de Médicis et Diane de Poitiers ? Ce livre est pour vous ! La Princesse Michael de Kent se charge de vous emmener dans les méandres de cette Renaissance Italienne sur de nombreux chapitres. Il y a certaines répétitions et les occurences ne sont pas toujours bien choisies mais l'Histoire est là déchiffrée, décortiquée, analysée et vous passez un moment agréable :)
—Fruity_spikey69
Oh dear. I was looking foreward to this so much because 1.) Catherine de' Medici was an amazing intelligent de facto ruler of France for some 30 years and Diane de Poitiers was an epic mistress to King Henri II so I thought this would be about the relationship between Catherine, Diane and Henri and how they all dealt with one another. But I'm sorry to say I learned nothing more about Catherine than I already knew other than how she bounced around convents for her protection as a child. Even the information about Diane is short, scattered, and reptitive throughout what I would call a biography of Francios I and Henri II. While I understand that Diane and Catherine were parts of Francios' court there's more information about him in this book than about the two women who are supposed to be the main topics. While Francios is a fantastic topic and definitely a man worth a biography, that's not why I bought this book. Another problem I had is the obvious, blatant skewing of bias against Catherine. H.R.H Princess Michael is a descendant from both Catherine and Diane (since those two were cousins) but she's firmly in Diane's party. She says in her author's note that's because she has a fascination with black and white a la Diane. While I would usually find this very cool that a person is identifing with her ancestor, yet I kept thinking throughout this book that if Princess Michael could she wouldn't want to be related to Catherine at all. While she does call Catherine intelligent and clever, she still calls her fat, ugly and all she can do is "hate and wait". Diane, while she was a good person, is portrayed as a Saint of France, Catherine is portrayed as the disfigured merchant's daughter. It's really quite sad. If this was a book based on the reigns of Francios and Henri, it deliviered. It's well written, the details and research are impeccible. However, it was to be a book about Catherine and Diane and in that it failed. If you want to learn about these two interesting women of history, I'd try another book.
—Jean Marie
I was very excited when I found this book because I adore anything to do with Catherine de Medici who I find woefully under-appreciated in the history books. With that being said I acknowledge that there was a bias towards Diane de Poitiers who was always potrayed in glowing terms while Catherine was usually written off as "fat" and ugly. However she did bring up Catherine's intelligence a great deal which I appreciated and described the history of France which I haven't read much about and cleared up my confusion on the prisoner situation with Henry's dad. It did quite well on detailing the menage de trois (sp?) relationship between them and how complicated and uncomfortable that must have been. I was fairly impressed with it though I am still peeved that the writer clearly loved and admired Diane in history over Catherine and that it was so palpable.
—Sara
