35 of 36 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Not "Secret" but "Fun" History of Paris, January 18, 2008
This review is from: Paris: The Secret History (Hardcover)
I read this book two years ago. Out of the blue, I decided to write a review. It is the first time I read the reviews on this book on Amazon. I must say that I am surprised at how many don't like this book.
Not everyone have time to read a dry 800 page book of the official history of France and another 800 page book of the social history of France and another 200 page Paris tourist guide book, so as a substitute, this 400 page of a fun history of Paris book seems like a great deal. For a introduction to France's history, a history of Paris would certainly be sufficient because many things that you see in Paris can be linked to parts of history. Examples: description of Paris' city plan in Roman times reminds us that France used to be "occupied" by the Romans. Then there is the Revolution, the crowning of Napoleon, the defeat of Napolean by the Germans, the Nazi occupation... The additional benefit of relating a historical event to a specific Parisian street/architecture/artifact in Paris is that it helps reader to remember the event better than just reading a history book.
Now, if you read a pure history book, you probably won't learn about where is the bar that the students and artists used to drink, where the jugglars used to perform, where the rich people used to live, where the prostitues used to linger. There probably would be less detailed description of the lifes of famous French actresses, the circumstances under which the numerous bridges across the Seine were built, when did postal service begin in Paris. There are also references to famous French writers, painters and architects for those are into the arts/literature. (maybe a little less references to musicians than I'd like)
I personally have a sort of interesting relationship with Paris. I must have been there 7 times, but have had only two short stints as a proper tourist instead of being on business. So, I know the streets, historical sites and museums of Paris reasonably well. I know quite well where modren Parisian shops and work. However, for myself at least, this book introduces a different aspect of Paris to me. Instead of just looking at the surface of the city, which is the modern or touristy fascade, I have a deeper sense of the myraid actors, glorious or hideous ones, that has shaped the city.
One complain I have about this book is that its map is too small and too unclear. It is a pity. I would love to trace everything the author mention on a map so that I can visit the place next time. Normally, this issue would cause me to reduce the star from 5 to 4.5, thus 4. But, given how many people don't like the book, I have to give it a 5 to stress my point.
This book is packed with fun details and informative history. It is organized into short chapters. It was a very quick read for me. I am pretty sure that I will read this book again at some point. (unfortunately, my original book is falling apart)
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
16 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Poorly researched, badly cited, inaccurate non-history, March 23, 2011
First, a quick warning - I am a medieval scholar working on a history of interaction between the Capetian kings of the middle ages and the royal basilica of Saint-Denis. As I am preparing to return to Paris for additional research, I thought I'd pick up a book that might give me more insight into periods that are NOT in my research field.
If you knew nothing about France in the middle ages before reading this book, you still know nothing about France in the middle ages after reading this book.
A few examples of egregious errors which could easily have been fixed with some fact checking:
1. Despite his claims to the contrary, Charles the Bald was not from the Robertine line (the counts of Paris who later became the Capetian kings); he was the grandson of Charlemagne. That would be the Carolingian house, not the Robertine.
2. Louis VI of France did NOT die without an heir. His eldest son, Philip, died young, but his second eldest son Louis took the throne as Louis the VII.
3. The good administration of Philip Augustus could not be attributed to Abbot Suger of Saint-Denis, as that gentleman had died in 1151 and Philip II Augustus was born in 1165.
4. One may claim a lot of things about Philip the Fair (Philip the VI of France, who died in 1314), but incompetent is NOT one of them. An incompetent person would fail in those tasks he set himself; Philip was remarkably successful. One might disagree with his goals, but that's another question. Philip deposed a powerful pope (Boniface VIII) and reversed all his edicts, had a pope of his own liking elected in the place of Boniface, established the Avignon papacy, prosecuted the Templar order (which involved rounding up all the chief officers of the Templars everywhere in France at the same time in a feat of synchronized action never previously achieved), expanded the holdings of the king into the north to increase his personal revenue, married his daughter to the king of England, oversaw the expansion of wealth and prosperity in Paris to an unheard of degree, kicked the Jews out of France and confiscated their wealth (again - one may deplore the deeds, but he was certainly competent enough to perform the act), prosecuted two of his daughters-in-law for adultery, and waged an on-going war with the Counts of Flanders.
Philip was, however, eternally strapped for cash. In general, this was the result of a long-term war in the north, along with very expensive building campaigns and exorbitant weddings and knighting services. While in many ways Philip was a man to dislike, he held to a strict and inflexible sense of morality and utter divine entitlement as king, and modern historians currently believe that his choice to suppress and destroy the Knights Templar was based more upon his abhorrence of sodomy and heresy (which were the same charge by the early 14th century) than his greed. After all, as Mr. Hussy does not deign to tell the reader, Philip gained very little profit from seizing the properties of the order, and was nearly as broke afterward as he was before. When he did levy taxes to pay for events like dowries, knighting services, and wars of defense, he was willing to cancel those taxes again as soon as the need was met - he considered doing so a moral necessity for a good and godly king.
5. Hussy states clearly that the French crown went through a crisis of succession after the death of Philip's heir, Louis X, in 1317. Wrong. Philip the Fair, at his death, had three grown sons - Louis, Philip, and Charles. Louis succeeded his father but died soon afterward, leaving a pregnant wife and a daughter of dubious parentage. The wife delivered a premature child, a boy named John the Postumous, who followed his father in death within a very short period. John was succeeded by Philip V, who reigned for several years and whose acts on the throne seem to indicate that, had he lived longer, he would have proven himself a capable and moderate king. At his premature death, his younger brother Charles took the throne, but also died soon afterward in 1322. Hussy skips all that detail, jumping right to a crisis of succession. For those not familiar, this involves the descendants of Isabelle, daughter of Philip the Fair, who married Edward II of England. Her sons would then have claim to the French throne through the female line. The uncles of Charles IV challenged that claim using a mis-application of the Salic Law, and succeeded to the throne themselves, an act applauded by the vast majority of the French who did not wish to be ruled by the English. The uncle of Charles IV was the first of the Valois rulers of France, but they were NOT a new line of kings.
Hussy states that this was the creation of a new line of kings. It was not. The French monarchy was able to claim an unbroken line of rulers from Hugh Capet through the French Revolution. When they executed Louis XVI, they called him Citizen Louis Capet - recognition of his descent from the founder of the royal lineage. Several times, the throne passed to cadet branches - from the Valois to the Bourbon, for example - but they were always in that same house. These shifts occurred without civil war, a feat not matched by the English who suffered several wars of succession.
6. You cannot go to the Ile-St.-Louis and see the house where Heloise received tutoring from Abelard. You can see the building which replaced it, but not that building, as very little remains of the city from the 12th century. Most houses were built of wood during that period.
7. Don't take his maps seriously. No permanent bridge between the Ile-de-la-Cite and the island currently named the Ile-St.-Louis existed in the middle ages. In 1313, the citizens of Paris built a pontoon bridge between the islands to facilitate ceremonies to enhance the knighting of Philip the Fair's sons. If he's wrong in this point, the maps are incorrect in many others.
In general, I was appalled by the kinds of basic mistakes made by this author - mistakes which could have been fixed with some really elementary fact checking. He seemed to be familiar with the work of Villon and with one of the accounts of the knighting ceremony of Philip the Fair's sons in 1313, but his knowledge of the sources and the experts who write on this subject was shallow. Where are the luminous images of the bridges of Paris found in the 1317 manuscript, the Vie de St-Denis, presented to Philip V? Where is the 13th century description of the urban scenes of Paris quoted so regularly in the secondary sources?
I understand that authors of popular histories like to paint themselves as jack-of-all-trade authorities, but you have to do your homework. How nice that you've read some Jacques le Goff; now read some Duby, Bloch, some Elizabeth A. R. Brown, Charlotte Lecaze, Panofsky, etc. Read up on the gothic architecture of Saint-Denis, which was far more important and revolutionary than that found in Notre Dame. But Mr. Hussy - you don't know medieval history. Not even a little. You need to consult with those who do.
And please please - don't reference Dan Brown's deplorable book when outlining the history of the Knights Templar. Certainly he's the elephant in the room, but you can drop him into a footnote if you feel you must. There's a lot of really excellent scholarship out there on the Templars, but the conspiracy theory stuff is just a visible ploy to garner attention. It's not worthy of any book claiming to be a "history".
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
