Duc de Saint Simon’s Memoires can’t help impressing with its chaotic style, infinite amount of lies and incredible pride. He perverts easily any story about the Court life (extracted from marquis de Dangeau’s Diary which he had corrected as well), in any episode we feel his disgust and disdain towards any noble person, especially towards Louis XIV’s and madame de Montespan’s children. The reason of such hate is very simple: Saint Simon was a bastard too. Speaking of the king’s personality, not without pleasure duc erases Louis’s noblesse and intelligence, tramples him in the mud, derides. Under his pen he creates totally desastrous image of the ruler: weak, always hungry, narrow-minded and self-unconfident.
Each of us has the right to be freethinking, but there must be the limit when you call yourself a chronicler of your century. That’s strange that historians pay so much attention to duc de Saint Simon’s writing. Moreover not without a pleasure they cite him or advance arguments based on his description. Does it mean that they feel the same hate to the object of their historical researches or does it mean that the truth of history might posess double standards accepted in a modern democratic society? If it’s so, then what will be left from the real Louis XIV? Though… it may not be the not essencial for those who multiplies lies of history. They just think of royalties.
In any case history needs a careful revision. Private opinions must stay, but not become canonical. Saint Simon’s Memoires is an example of yellow journalims and doesn’t deserved to be considered as a proper historical work.