{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02416918429003021, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001294777729823047, 'mean_word_length': 5.005181347150259, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Companion to Late Medieval and Early Modern Augsburg

Adams argue, did the royal mistress become a “tradition, a quasi-institutionalized political position, generally accepted if always vaguely scandalous” (15). French notions of gender, they claim, contributed to the creation of the royal mistress. Paradoxically, the Salic Law that banned women from the throne “created opportunities for female authority” (5). Because the royal mistress could not usurp the throne, she was allowed to wield some power as an “open secret.” At the same time, the “theatricalization of the court” in the first half of the sixteenth century made it possible for the mistress to publicize her power and assert her personality. The authors also credit another court institution—the male favorite, or mignon—with paving the way for the royal mistress. Both mignon and royal mistress subverted the traditional gatekeepers of the court, the high nobility, and depended only on the king. By virtue of her sex, however, the royal mistress exercised limited power and posed less of a threat to other courtiers. Consequently, she survived, while the mignons disappeared at the end of the reign of Henri III. For the next two hundred years, the French kings conferred the official title of royal mistress on six women. These women had different ambitions: Madame de Maintenon sought to influence the composition of the clergy, while Pompadour concentrated on state appointments. These women also exerted different degrees of power. Pompadour worked tirelessly for her supporters, sometimes intruding into the area of foreign affairs. Du Barry found it harder to ward off opposing factions and had much less influence on matters of state. The authors make few comparisons between the different mistresses, and one misses a concluding chapter that might have brought together all the threads of the argument and provided answers to some general questions. Why did kings elevate these women who were lightning rods for criticism? How did the royal mistress enhance the monarchy or contribute to its functions? The Creation of the Royal Mistress tells us how the mistress was created, but not why. Still, this is a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the French monarchy and the changing roles and relationships of women at the royal court.