(no subject)
Feb. 24th, 2006 06:09 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
axmxz.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
revolution_butTrip to the used bookstore yielded the following:
"Paris, Capital of Modernity," by David Harvey. Basically a nice overview of life in the city, popular sentiments, caricatures etc. from 1830 to 1871 with special emphasis on the 1848 Revolution.
"Thomas Jefferson's Paris," by Howard C. Rice, Jr. This one is mostly architecture-focused, with occasional detours into theatre, art and other public visuals. Is divided by sections of Paris: life at St. Germain, the Tuileries, the Boulevards, the Printers, etc. Mostly centers on the 1780s with some 1770s and 1790s.
(So basically, I'll have to triangulate and interpolate for our own period.)
"The First Detective: The Life and Revolutionary Times of Eugene-Francois Vidocq, Criminal, Spy and Pivate Eye." Written by one James Morton; very "pop history", glossy cover with a portrait *not of Vidocq*. Basically, the only reason I bought it is to keep up with the curent sentiments on the guy, not for info. Frankly, this James Morton is an idiot, and his reviewers are no better. (The back cover of the book proclaims the book to be "a gloriously enjoyable historical romp through the eighteenth-century." Vidocq was born in 1775, became affiliated with the police in 1809 and became a publically known figure in the early 1820s. Someone clearly doesn't understand how centuries get designated.)
Quote from the book itself to show conclusively that the author is not the sharpest knife in the drawer:
"One of the more entertaining of Vidocq's tales is his arrest in 1814 of the thief Sablin, described as a giant of a man, which, at five feet ten inches, in those days he would be."
No, he wouldn't. Morton, either out of ingorance or simple British myopia, neglected to convert his units. The French and English feet were not and still are not identical in length. The French foot is equal to approximately 1.07 English feet or 12.79 English inches. This makes Morton's supposed five-foot-ten giant a healthy 6'2.6'' - pretty darn tall even for this day and age. I suppose Morton thinks that Vidocq - who basically had Valjean's build and was considered huge - was the wimpy five-foot-five that Vidocq himself indicates in his memoirs instead of the far more understandable five-foot-nine-and-half that we get after converting the units.
Ugh. Sloppy historians piss me off.
/rant
"Paris, Capital of Modernity," by David Harvey. Basically a nice overview of life in the city, popular sentiments, caricatures etc. from 1830 to 1871 with special emphasis on the 1848 Revolution.
"Thomas Jefferson's Paris," by Howard C. Rice, Jr. This one is mostly architecture-focused, with occasional detours into theatre, art and other public visuals. Is divided by sections of Paris: life at St. Germain, the Tuileries, the Boulevards, the Printers, etc. Mostly centers on the 1780s with some 1770s and 1790s.
(So basically, I'll have to triangulate and interpolate for our own period.)
"The First Detective: The Life and Revolutionary Times of Eugene-Francois Vidocq, Criminal, Spy and Pivate Eye." Written by one James Morton; very "pop history", glossy cover with a portrait *not of Vidocq*. Basically, the only reason I bought it is to keep up with the curent sentiments on the guy, not for info. Frankly, this James Morton is an idiot, and his reviewers are no better. (The back cover of the book proclaims the book to be "a gloriously enjoyable historical romp through the eighteenth-century." Vidocq was born in 1775, became affiliated with the police in 1809 and became a publically known figure in the early 1820s. Someone clearly doesn't understand how centuries get designated.)
Quote from the book itself to show conclusively that the author is not the sharpest knife in the drawer:
"One of the more entertaining of Vidocq's tales is his arrest in 1814 of the thief Sablin, described as a giant of a man, which, at five feet ten inches, in those days he would be."
No, he wouldn't. Morton, either out of ingorance or simple British myopia, neglected to convert his units. The French and English feet were not and still are not identical in length. The French foot is equal to approximately 1.07 English feet or 12.79 English inches. This makes Morton's supposed five-foot-ten giant a healthy 6'2.6'' - pretty darn tall even for this day and age. I suppose Morton thinks that Vidocq - who basically had Valjean's build and was considered huge - was the wimpy five-foot-five that Vidocq himself indicates in his memoirs instead of the far more understandable five-foot-nine-and-half that we get after converting the units.
Ugh. Sloppy historians piss me off.
/rant
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-25 11:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-25 04:31 pm (UTC)