You're quite right in wanting a good source beyond the Heller instruction manual, which is worthless. Among other problems, it provides for no means of attaching the yards to the masts.
Probably the best source for rigging that particular vessel is The Rigging of Ships in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast, by R.C. Anderson. Dr. Anderson was one of the first experts on serious ship modeling; I believe the first edition of the book came out in the 1920s. He later did a revised version, with the title Seventeenth-Century Rigging, but it only covers English ships; you want the original. I believe it's available in a Dover Press paperback reprint for a very reasonable price. I think I've seen it on the book list of Model Expo: <modelexpoonline.com>.
Since you describe yourself as a perfectionist, I think maybe (after a great deal of hesitation) I ought to mention a few things about the Heller Soleil Royal kit. I built it quite a few years back, and I wish I'd done some reading in advance. You may want to stop reading at this point.
The Heller moldmakers of that period (mid- to late 1970s, I believe) were magnificent artisans; the sculptures on the bow and stern of that kit are comparable in quality to those of the finest "Admiralty models." I can't pay a higher compliment than that. The problem is that, though they were great artists, they didn't know enough about ships.
The kit seems to be based on a huge model of Le Soleil Royal in the Musee de la Marine, in Paris. That model (though the Heller folks apparently didn't know it) is unfinished. On the Heller kit there's a huge hole in the knee of the head, between the two big molded rails that support the figurehead. On the Musee de la Marine model it's perfectly obvious that there's supposed to be some sort of carved ornamentation there; if the real ship had a hole in it like that the bow would collapse.
There's another big problem with the stern ornamentation. The Heller designers apparently worked from a side-view drawing that didn't clarify the situation in three dimensions. There are supposed to be a couple of open balconies that, in the kit, aren't there. Again, if you look at a photo of the old model the difference will be horribly obvious.
There are various pieces of evidence that the designers didn't quite understand the basics of naval architecture. The decks, for instance (if I remember correctly) are perfectly flat. They ought to have camber (i.e., be gently arched upward in the middle) - and so should the various rails, hatch coamings, and other features that are attached to them. One of the more amusing goofs concerns the belaying pins. They have sharp points; apparently somebody thought they'd been pounded through the rails.
Most seriously of all, the proportions of the hull are way off. I confess the possibility of such a mistake didn't occur to me as I was working on mine, but as I look at it now (even without a photo of the old model for comparison) it's pretty clear that the hull below the waterline is too small and shallow. If the real ship had looked like that its ability to float would be highly questionable. And if a model company distorted the proportions of an airplane, tank, or car like that it would be laughed out of the industry.
Like I said, I hesitated before typing this. I can testify from experience that the kit builds into a beautiful-looking finished product. But to do it justice will take a great deal of time - and fixing the mistakes would be almost as difficult as working from scratch. And if built out of the box it won't, by most reasonable definitions, be a scale model. It's not for me to tell anybody whether this kit, or any other, is worth building or not, but I do think people are entitled to go into such projects with their eyes open.
Incidentally, the next big ship kit Heller did after that one was the galley Reale. That one, to my eye, is a beauty - and the subsequent H.M.S. Victory is one of the gems of the plastic kit industry. Heller, like most other kit manufacturers, went through some big growing pains.