"[6] Gary Macy wrote that the three parts of Saint Louis "could easily stand alone as separate books [...] together they comprise perhaps the most complete historiographic study of one historical person every [sic] attempted."

She claimed that it is not a full biography of Louis as a king, centering more on his personality and the ideology surrounding his rulership than on his actual governance, but Davis called the second part of the book "a tour de force of source analysis".

"[4] Carol J. Williams claimed that M. Cecilia Gaposchkin, in The Making of Saint Louis (2010), is "generous in her recognition of the fundamental work of Le Goff".

[10] Alexander Lee of referred to his biographies of Louis and Francis as landmarks, while still arguing that "his most dramatic contribution to scholarship was perhaps La Naissance du Purgatoire (1981)".

[...] Blanche is ‘insufferable and frankly, odious’, Matthew Paris shows his ‘usual perversity’, Louis ‘held intellectuals in contempt’ (actually, he helped found the Sorbonne).

This broadness of brush hides nuances which, exposed, would reveal that Louis’s reign has a long-term significance that Le Goff scarcely hints at.

"[12] David Bachrach praised the second section of Saint Louis as the strongest, particularly Le Goff's treatment of Jean de Joinville's account.