What do you think?
Rate this book
Henri IV
Paris. 22 cm. 1070 p. Encuadernación en tapa blanda de editorial ilustrada. Idioma francés .. Este libro es de segunda mano y tiene o puede tener marcas y señales de su anterior propietario.
1103 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1982
3 people are currently reading
22 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 23, 2026
1.5 stars
My biggest problem with this book is that it pretends to be a comprehensive biography of Henri IV, when in fact it has too many fatuous value judgments, unsubstantiated assumptions, and rumors presented as plausible or even as fact when they have long been disproven (for example, Agrippa’s tale about Esther Imbert).
The author does not tell anything new to those who are versed in the subject. Given the page count and the low “quality” of the majority of French books on this king, this bio looks relatively okay (for the date when it was published), but if you want a rigorous analysis based on documental evidence and more or less reliable primary sources, you will be disappointed. It’s a pity that in such a big book so many primary sources (letters of Henri’s contemporaries, ambassadors’ dispatches, foreign travelers’ notes, etc.) are ignored in favor of pamphlets and literature written many decades later (e.g., Tallemant). The author’s respect for opinions of certain writers (e.g., Ritter) makes his take on Henri even less credible, as their interpretations are dated and obviously too biased.
The author insistence on Henri’s alleged indecisiveness (probably he simply repeats this value judgment after Ritter) seems ridiculous when you know the facts and circumstances under which Henri often had to make his decisions.
In addition, the author’s views of Catherine de Medici, Marguerite of Valois and Gabrielle d'Estreés also look cliched. His apparent admiration of Sully, Henri’s minister, leads him to exaggerating Sully’s role at the expense of other ministers and the king himself.
But I don’t want my review to appear too critical, so I will give a positive example from the book. Henri didn’t have an accent, as he spent many years in French court as a young boy. This claim about his alleged provincial accent is often repeated, but again, most popular books about Henri have little value in terms of historical accuracy.
To sum up, Henri clearly deserves a much better biographer who will take the pains to separate fact from fiction and introduce less known historical material instead of uncritically repeating certain characterizations allegedly made by some of Henri’s contemporaries and of throwing on the reader his own value judgments, many of which can be easily countered by historical evidence.
After careful consideration, one must admit that this book is hardly any better than usual anecdotal biographies of Henri written in French. Not recommended.
Just the fact that Babelon repeatedly calls Henri le “Béarnais”proves that this book should not be taken seriously. Didn’t he know that this was a derogatory sobriquet used only by Henri’s enemies? Or was he so blinded by prejudice and certain misconceptions that he simply didn’t care about historical truth? Either way, using this derogatory name as often as he did in his book is revealing. It is also a way to assess other books about this king. Babelon is just one of many such biographers for whom anecdotes and stupid tales obviously matter more than historical reality.
My biggest problem with this book is that it pretends to be a comprehensive biography of Henri IV, when in fact it has too many fatuous value judgments, unsubstantiated assumptions, and rumors presented as plausible or even as fact when they have long been disproven (for example, Agrippa’s tale about Esther Imbert).
The author does not tell anything new to those who are versed in the subject. Given the page count and the low “quality” of the majority of French books on this king, this bio looks relatively okay (for the date when it was published), but if you want a rigorous analysis based on documental evidence and more or less reliable primary sources, you will be disappointed. It’s a pity that in such a big book so many primary sources (letters of Henri’s contemporaries, ambassadors’ dispatches, foreign travelers’ notes, etc.) are ignored in favor of pamphlets and literature written many decades later (e.g., Tallemant). The author’s respect for opinions of certain writers (e.g., Ritter) makes his take on Henri even less credible, as their interpretations are dated and obviously too biased.
The author insistence on Henri’s alleged indecisiveness (probably he simply repeats this value judgment after Ritter) seems ridiculous when you know the facts and circumstances under which Henri often had to make his decisions.
In addition, the author’s views of Catherine de Medici, Marguerite of Valois and Gabrielle d'Estreés also look cliched. His apparent admiration of Sully, Henri’s minister, leads him to exaggerating Sully’s role at the expense of other ministers and the king himself.
But I don’t want my review to appear too critical, so I will give a positive example from the book. Henri didn’t have an accent, as he spent many years in French court as a young boy. This claim about his alleged provincial accent is often repeated, but again, most popular books about Henri have little value in terms of historical accuracy.
To sum up, Henri clearly deserves a much better biographer who will take the pains to separate fact from fiction and introduce less known historical material instead of uncritically repeating certain characterizations allegedly made by some of Henri’s contemporaries and of throwing on the reader his own value judgments, many of which can be easily countered by historical evidence.
After careful consideration, one must admit that this book is hardly any better than usual anecdotal biographies of Henri written in French. Not recommended.
Just the fact that Babelon repeatedly calls Henri le “Béarnais”proves that this book should not be taken seriously. Didn’t he know that this was a derogatory sobriquet used only by Henri’s enemies? Or was he so blinded by prejudice and certain misconceptions that he simply didn’t care about historical truth? Either way, using this derogatory name as often as he did in his book is revealing. It is also a way to assess other books about this king. Babelon is just one of many such biographers for whom anecdotes and stupid tales obviously matter more than historical reality.
Displaying 1 of 1 review