Tea at Trianon: Avoiding Anachronisms in Historical Fiction

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Saturday, January 18, 2014

Avoiding Anachronisms in Historical Fiction

A helpful article by author Priscilla Royal. To quote:

Research into our chosen era is crucial. We need to understand how and why people thought the way they did. Some of that may feel so illogical or strange to us that we know readers will find it hard to sympathize with the characters we portray as positive. How to get around this? My answer is to remember the wisdom of my favorite grump, Ecclesiastes, who so famously wrote that there is no new thing under the sun.

In any modern period, people are inclined to believe that their era is wisest, full of fresh ideas, and better than any other. In fact, democracy in some form was present in Athens and even medieval monasteries. The confederation of the original twelve tribes of Israel, albeit under a king, resembles the beginning of the United States with the thirteen colonies. Are there differences? Yes, but there is a resonance.

The more original sources from the medieval era I read, the more I am struck by similarities between that era and many others, including this one. Western Europe may have been predominantly Christian, but it was also influenced by Islam in medicine, mathematics, language, and even spices. There were non-believers, gay people, powerful women, and Jews who were respected and accepted. The trap for historical fiction writers in recognizing this is giving their characters modern perceptions and rationales for the deviances from the conventional attitudes, also known as the era’s party line. What we cannot do is use our frame of reference and logic to present a point of view that proves the universality of human thought. (Read more.)