Scan barcode
A review by oeufmily
Catherine de Medici: Renaissance Queen of France by Leonie Frieda
3.0
i kind of love when non-historians write history books. their source material, methodologies, & historiography can be kind of iffy, but you're probably going to be in for a good time. i enjoyed this biography of catherine de medici—i knew a fair amount of history re: french wars of religion, but it definitely wasn't my Focus in undergrad or anything. i found leonie frieda's tone very readable. she was able to distill the complicated politics behind multiple wars of """religion""" for a general audience. love that!
but one thing i don't love is the truly comical amounts of moral relativism going on in here. like. i think the mark of a true biographer is shamelessly hinting that, if given the opportunity, you would bang your chosen hyperfixation. great biographers are always a little down for their subjects. leonie frieda is a catherine de medici apologist through and through. in the introduction, she literally says she's setting out to rehabilitate catherine's reputation. it's a pretty tall order. catherine de medici is infamous for her role in the st. bartholomew's day massacre, a bloodbath that kicked off literal weeks of ethno-religious murders and mob lynchings all across france. all in all, the wave of violence claimed anywhere between 5,000 and 30,000 (?!?!?!?) lives. frieda's judgment of catherine's culpability in this borderline genocide is, essentially: she didn't understand people took religion that seriously, she probably could have handled it better, and anyway, she was a product of her time.
what, lol.
there are other wild stories that are just completely glossed over, like how her son, francis the duke d'anjou & alençon, personally presided over the murder of 3,000 french protestants in issoire in 1577. it gets mentioned in one paragraph and is never brought up again. i know all the valois were absolutely awful people but just. what even! and her evaluation of diane de poitiers's affair with catherine's husband, king henry ii, is just so funny to me. she hates this dead woman SO much, for NO reason other than the fact that she hates to see a girlboss winning. henry ii wanted to be a malewife so bad and i think we should have just left him to it.
i think it's perfectly fine to judge historical figures' moral scruples, so long as there is plenty of context provided. this is the hurdle that so many trained historians have to overcome—it's rare that you'll find a good historical monograph that balances the context with a compelling, engaging narrative. this biography of catherine de medici is definitely way heavier on the narrative. it's descriptive, it's fun, it's informative. but i think there could have been a bit more contextualization and Serious History going on in here.
let me be clear, though: i did enjoy it! i was hesitant to pick up a history book after being burned out from grad school, but this was enough of a palate cleanser that i was able to breeze right through it. if you're curious about the end of the valois and want to learn a little more about renaissance france and catherine de medici, this is a great place to start! just take it with a grain of salt.
but one thing i don't love is the truly comical amounts of moral relativism going on in here. like. i think the mark of a true biographer is shamelessly hinting that, if given the opportunity, you would bang your chosen hyperfixation. great biographers are always a little down for their subjects. leonie frieda is a catherine de medici apologist through and through. in the introduction, she literally says she's setting out to rehabilitate catherine's reputation. it's a pretty tall order. catherine de medici is infamous for her role in the st. bartholomew's day massacre, a bloodbath that kicked off literal weeks of ethno-religious murders and mob lynchings all across france. all in all, the wave of violence claimed anywhere between 5,000 and 30,000 (?!?!?!?) lives. frieda's judgment of catherine's culpability in this borderline genocide is, essentially: she didn't understand people took religion that seriously, she probably could have handled it better, and anyway, she was a product of her time.
what, lol.
there are other wild stories that are just completely glossed over, like how her son, francis the duke d'anjou & alençon, personally presided over the murder of 3,000 french protestants in issoire in 1577. it gets mentioned in one paragraph and is never brought up again. i know all the valois were absolutely awful people but just. what even! and her evaluation of diane de poitiers's affair with catherine's husband, king henry ii, is just so funny to me. she hates this dead woman SO much, for NO reason other than the fact that she hates to see a girlboss winning. henry ii wanted to be a malewife so bad and i think we should have just left him to it.
i think it's perfectly fine to judge historical figures' moral scruples, so long as there is plenty of context provided. this is the hurdle that so many trained historians have to overcome—it's rare that you'll find a good historical monograph that balances the context with a compelling, engaging narrative. this biography of catherine de medici is definitely way heavier on the narrative. it's descriptive, it's fun, it's informative. but i think there could have been a bit more contextualization and Serious History going on in here.
let me be clear, though: i did enjoy it! i was hesitant to pick up a history book after being burned out from grad school, but this was enough of a palate cleanser that i was able to breeze right through it. if you're curious about the end of the valois and want to learn a little more about renaissance france and catherine de medici, this is a great place to start! just take it with a grain of salt.