Review : The Last Duel

Wait, didn't I already do this one ? Yes, I did, but that was the movie. This review is about the book, which lay a little too long on my shelf because I completely forgot that I had it.

Like the movie this will contain spoilers, so you might want to stop reading here.

The most obvious question is whether it's worth bothering with the book after the movie did such an excellent job. The answer is a definite yes : the book and movie differ considerably, with more details in the book about what is/isn't known and giving a rather different perspective. In particular, the chapter about the duel itself is absolutely thrilling and could not be improved upon. I hung on every word. With the rest of the book being completely solid, I feel I have no choice but to give this one a 9/10.

The only weakness I can find with this is that while the author (Eric Jager) says he tries to fill in the blanks where necessary, in practise he doesn't really do this at all. Instead he has a tendency to present all the possibilities in a rather peculiar way that takes some getting used to. To exaggerate slightly, he might say something like, "Marguerite travelled the five miles in a grand stately carriage, richly adorned with hangings and cushions to keep out the cold winter air. Or perhaps she had to make do with a small Shetland pony, her dainty feet trailing in the mud, which would have been far less comfortable."

It's a bit of an odd technique, first presenting a very clear, very specific description, only to do a bait-and-switch to another completely different but equally clear and specific alternative. But once you get used to this it becomes easy to factor this in and not get constantly jolted by the different options.

I'm going to keep this one very short. There are plenty of points of detail in difference from the movie : Carrouges and Le Gris are never described as being in combat together, Marguerite is never suggested to be a more able manager of the household than her husband. The movie's choice to present the whole story from three different viewpoints is not how the book is written (except, necessarily, during the trial), which only makes me admire the movie all the more. Still it's worth remembering that the movie does invent a lot of detail.

The most critical difference I think is in the description of Le Gris. In the movie, the rape scene occurs in all different retellings. In reality he denied this vehemently. At times it almost felt like he had a credible case. As a member of the clergy he was within his rights to deny the duel at all, but chose not to. He had an alibi for the time of the rape and seems to have gone to some lengths to establish this in detail. I found Jager's tone here to be pleasingly neutral, not taking sides with anyone but trying to present a reasonably critical appraisal of the situation.

The other major difference is something mentioned in the book only because it was not in fact used at the trial : the notion that a woman couldn't become pregnant if she was unwilling. In the movie this is added to the trial scene because it has some obvious resonances with contemporary American politics (!), and I think this is the correct choice. Jager notes that the reason for this belief was genealogical, that corrupting the bloodlines was so undesirable that nobody wanted to believe this could happen if they could possibly avoid it. This is a hard mentality for modern readers to buy into, but Jager does a decent job here.

His conclusions are, as in the movie, quite firmly that Le Gris did indeed rape Marguerite. She stuck to her story despite the extreme risk this entailed, Le Gris' alibi turned out to be unreliable, and, crucially, even his own lawyer privately expressed pretty strong doubts about the innocence of his client. Additionally, the presence of Le Gris' assistant Adam Louvel was a needless complicating detail that potentially opened the door to further alibis that would have been very much harder to refute. If the story of the rape was a fabrication, either because she was somehow mistaken or coerced into it by her rather boorish husband jealous of Le Gris's success, then this was a pointless and foolish risk. Moreover, while her husband did have reasons to be jealous of Le Gris, so too did the French court have political reasons to prefer its favourite to the troublemaking Carrouges.

Jager also weaves in some of the broader histories of duels. Outlawed in 1306, they had to be re-instituted because of their popularity. But this was in marked decline, ironically leading to even more brutality. As combat gave way to trials, unfortunately the widespread belief was that torture was the correct way to get at the truth - so torture actually increased as judicial combat declined. 

Finally, Jager also gives the history of the history, noting how the duel has been portrayed to suit different ends. Many authors have used it, unfairly in his view, to cite how foolish the duel was - not unfair because duelling was a sensible idea (it obviously wasn't !) but because of claims that Marguerite was in the wrong. Stories have emerged that she later retracted her claim, but he finds this is completely false, and largely based on a very few dubious second-hand assertions. The tale grew in the telling, such that the "retraction" became almost common knowledge, but by going back to the original first-hand evidence, it seems that all of these later findings are built on a house of cards.

As I say, an excellent little book, which definitely makes me want to re-watch the movie. Fascinating and gripping stuff.