Most Helpful Customer Reviews
19 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Poor history mixed with faux scholasticism, August 7, 2003
By A Customer
Levi divides this book into two parts. The first half is history in the "in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue" style that went out years ago. It is a numbing recital of: "in 16xx ABC did this; in 16xx DEF did that; and in 16xx so did GHI". This half of the book is poorly organized. Often Levi is forced to double back 10 to 20 pages in order to pick up something he forgot. Unless you have a good grasp of 17th century France and its history, you will find the wild cascade of unrelated names and places disorienting. Don't waste your time trying to follow the history. Much of it is factually debatable. I must stress: the man simply has his historical facts jumbled and in error. Levi never even quite seems to figure out when the 30 Years War took place. One of the reasons Richelieu was so destested and hated in his time was his conduct during the 30 Years War. As a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, he made the Protestant Revolution successful in Germany and the lowlands. His support with money and troops against the Catholic Habsburg monarchy of Austria made Protestant success possible. Why did he do that? A) to weaken the Catholic Austrians vis-a-vis France, B) to destroy the populations and wealth of the German states and the lowlands as competitors to France, and C) for the power and glory of France. Levi never even mentions this critical period. It is Richelieu's greatest contribution to French history. In part two Levi takes up the cultural side. This half of the book abandons the "in 1492" approach for some of the worst academic English you are ever going to meet. The man simply cannot construct a pointed English sentence. I quit counting the number of consecutive 50 to 70 WORD sentences. Subjects and verbs seldom seem to meet, much less agree. Only experts at diagramming sentences need apply. Levi is clearly not in his home area. Bluntly, anyone who can dismiss Corneille, Pascal, and Descartes is simply not well grounded in this period and its follow up. The lengthy discussion of Jansenism puts Levi into a subject area he clearly does not understand. About all you can say he got right for certain is that Richelieu and the Jansenists were not on good terms. This book is a quandary. In many respects it is a hagiographic gloss of Richelieu. As a piece of popular history it is barely skin deep. Historical accuracy and much of the religious interpretation is questionable. The political analysis is simplistic and incomplete. (Hopefully, you already understand the relations of the Habsburgs, Dutch, Swedes, Germans, and the Pope. Levi spends a lot of time wandering in the wilderness here.) The quality of writing is pretentious in the second half, and questionable throughout. When finished, you will have done little more than confirmed the preconceptions about Richelieu you brought with you, picked up some odd notions about Louis XIII, and maybe have acquired a smattering of dates.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A man of contradiction and contrast, July 31, 2003
This is a good work of popular history. As he wrote it, Levi was probably thinking of people like me who know their knowledge of French history in the 17th century is inadequate but don't want to spend months in the library filling in the gaps. The book is full of important figures like Marie de Medici, Anne of Austria, and Gaston of Orleans, but Richelieu and his career are at the center of the whole story. The author is at his best when analyzing Richelieu psychologically and morally, but he seems to value those of his subject's virtues that might place him closer to the Homeric moral universe than to ours. He praises the cardinal for his bravery, tenacity, and ruthlessness rather than looking for signs of compassion, tenderness, or justice. Of course Richelieu was intensely loyal to the king, Louis XIII, but he was equally loyal to his own quest for power, prestige, and possessions, three realms in which he met with overwhelming success. One of the interesting side issues in the book is the king's inability to relate sexually to women and his dalliances with several men, most notably with Cinq-Mars, who betrayed him. Richelieu did his best to protect the king's reputation even in this area. The more important question Levi works with is how Richelieu almost single-handedly changed France from a collection of separate areas, princedoms and duchies, with their various customs, laws, traditions and loyalties, into a modern nation-state under the absolute authority of the monarch. He also did much to promote culture, art, and literature. But he achieved all this at the cost of unendurable suffering among the common people, who were over-taxed, underfed, and who lived in general misery. Naturally, he was generally despised.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
10 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
The "real" Cardinal Richelieu, March 25, 2002
This review is from: Cardinal Richelieu: And the Making of France (Paperback)
I believe that most contemporary folks only know of Cardinal Richelieu from two sources: 1. As the scheming villain of countless "Three Musketeers" films, or 2. As the surprise witness at the parking ticket trial in the famous Monthy Python sketch. Both these portrayals, of course, are incorrect, and the author of this fine work has endeavored mightily to correct any wrong impressions we may have about this justly famous, but reviled, man. Levi's Richelieu was a churchman of true faith and belief who spent his life trying to consolidate the French people and sovereign into a modern nation state, and succeeded, more or less, by the time of his death. It is a fascinating read, marred only by the changing names of some of the players, and a light going over of French history that often leaves the lay reader confused as to what was happening where and by whom. It's worth finishing, though, to give insight into the mind and actions of a man who had a goal, and stayed with it in a single-minded way during his entire career in public service to his king and country.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|