Geskiedenis Podcasts

Wie was die Man in the Iron Mask?

Wie was die Man in the Iron Mask?

Tydens die bewind van koning Lodewyk XIV was 'n raaiselagtige man wat dekades lank in die Bastille en ander Franse gevangenisse was. Niemand het sy identiteit geken of hoekom hy in die tronk was nie. Selfs vreemdeling, niemand het geweet hoe hy lyk nie - die gevangene is nooit gesien sonder dat 'n swart fluweelmasker sy gesig bedek het nie. Die anonieme gevangene het sedertdien talle verhale en legendes geïnspireer - geskrifte deur Voltaire en Alexandre Dumas het gehelp om die mite dat sy masker van yster was, gewild te maak - maar die meeste historici is dit eens dat hy bestaan. So wie was hy?

Honderde verskillende kandidate is voorgestel, van 'n lid van die koninklike familie tot 'n skande Franse generaal en selfs die dramaturg Molière. Tog dui bewyse daarop dat slegs twee gevangenes gedurende dieselfde tydperk as die 'masker' in aanhouding was: Ercole Matthiole en Eustache Dauger. Matthiole was 'n Italiaanse graaf wat ontvoer en in die tronk gestop is nadat hy probeer het om Lodewyk XIV tydens politieke onderhandelinge aan die einde van die 1670's oor te steek. Hy was 'n jarelange gevangene, en sy naam is soortgelyk aan "Marchioly" - die alias waaronder die masker begrawe is. Nog meer oortuigend is dat Louis XV en Louis XVI albei vermoedelik gesê het dat die masker 'n Italiaanse edelman was.

Ongelukkig is Matthiole waarskynlik in 1694 oorlede - 'n paar jaar te vroeg vir hom om die masker te wees. Met dit in gedagte, wys baie op die raaiselagtige Eustache Dauger as die meer waarskynlike skuldige. Sy arrestasiebevel uit 1669 bevat 'n brief van 'n koninklike minister wat tronkbewaarders opdrag gee om sy kontak met ander te beperk en "hom met die dood te dreig as hy een woord spreek behalwe oor sy werklike behoeftes." Dauger is gereeld tussen verskeie gevangenisse opgepas en is eenkeer in 'n onderdakstoel vervoer sodat verbygangers nie sy gesig sou sien nie. Alhoewel Dauger 'n gewilde kandidaat is om die masker te wees, weet historici nog steeds nie wie hy was of of sy naam 'n skuilnaam was nie. Een teorie beweer dat hy 'n nederige valet was wat by 'n politieke skandaal betrokke was, maar dat hy ook geïdentifiseer is as 'n losbandige edelman, 'n mislukte sluipmoordenaar en selfs die tweelingbroer van Lodewyk XIV.


The Truth Behind ‘ The Man in the Iron Mask ’

Die man in die ystermasker is 'n beroemde roman deur Alexandre Dumas, 'n Hollywood -film met Leonardo di Caprio in die hoofrol. Die boek maak deel uit van die siklus van romans van Dumas en Three Musketiers, wat die avonture van D & rsquoArtagnan, Athos, Porthos en Aramis dek. In Die man in die ystermasker, die verhouding van die beroemde viertal is onder druk terwyl hulle aan weerskante van 'n magstryd veg.

Die verhaal begin met Aramis (nou 'n priester) wat saam met 'n gevangene in die Bastille -gevangenis sit. Die man is koning Louis XIV en tweelingbroer Philippe en die wettige troonopvolger. Aramis besluit om hom te help om die troon te neem, en so begin nog 'n deurmekaar avontuur in 'n tipiese Dumas -styl.

Uiteindelik dwing Louis Philippe om 'n ysterskerm te dra as hy dit verwyder, sal hy tereggestel word. Alhoewel dit 'n mooi verhaal is, is dit gebaseer op werklike gebeurtenisse, want daar was eintlik 'n gemaskerde man in verskillende gevangenisse vir ongeveer 34 jaar. Hoewel sy identiteit 'n geheim bly, glo 'n toenemende aantal historici dat hulle weet wie hy was.

Uitbeelding van die man in die ystermasker. Wikimedia


Die verkeerde benaming in die ystermasker

Die mees teleurstellende deel van die verhaal van die Man in the Iron Mask is waarskynlik die groot "ystermasker" wat in die steek gelaat is. Soos National Geographic wys daarop dat dit waarskynlik meer 'n poëtiese interpretasie as 'n fisiese beskrywing was om die gesig van die gevangene as 'yster' te noem. Historici is geneig om die teorie dat hy 'n fluweelmasker gedra het, slegs metafories yster te bevoordeel, omdat dit 'n permanente toevoeging tot sy klerekas was. Goldfinger se vinger was nie regtig goud nie, en die lede van Iron Maiden was grotendeels uit stukkies vleis. Die waarheid in reklame was nog altyd 'n moeilike manier om te kraak.

Die identiteit van die man was in elk geval 'n goed bewaarde geheim, en nuuskierige gedagtes begin al honderde jare teorieë soos kleiduiwe, net om hulle te sien afskiet deur mense wat waarskynlik daarvan hou om met die woord 'eintlik' te begin. Sommige rekords dui op 'n ware Eustache Dauger-'n bediende wat 'n verleentheid van kerkverwante getuienis gesien het, wat óf wanbesteding van fondse insluit, of, en dit is 'n gedeelte van 'n "swart massa"-as die ware ooreenkoms, maar daar is teenstrydige bewyse. Dauger is moontlik dood in 'n aparte gevangenis van die Man in the Iron Mask of in 'n dronk bedwelm nadat hy sy werk verloor het.


Wie was die Man in the Iron Mask? - GESKIEDENIS

Op 19 November 1703 verwelkom 'n graf in die Saint Paul -begraafplaas in die Bastille die lyk van 'n man wat byna die laaste vier dekades van sy lewe in verskillende gevangenisse van Frankryk deurgebring het. Hy is ongetwyfeld die bekendste gevangene in die Franse geskiedenis, al weet niemand hoekom hy meer as vyf en dertig jaar in die tronk moes sit nie, na berig word in byna perfekte isolasie en dikwels met sy gesig bedek.

Die eerste bekende rekord van die man dateer uit Julie 1669 toe Marquis de Louvois in 'n brief aan die goewerneur van die Pignerol-gevangenis, Bénigne Dauvergne de Saint-Mars, verklaar dat 'n gevangene met die naam Eustache Dauger sou aankom, wie & was #8220 slegs 'n valet. ” Hierdie man sou voortaan die “man in die ystermasker wees. ”

Maar was dit sy regte naam? Dit is onseker, en in die brief is dit duidelik dat die naam bygevoeg is deur 'n ander persoon as wat die res van die brief geskryf het. Waarom dit die geval is, is een van die vele raaisels rondom hierdie gevangene.

Van hier af het ons talle verwysings na die man, sommige meer geloofwaardig as ander. Voltaire noem hom byvoorbeeld in sy werk, Le siècle de Louis XIV. Voltaire was in 1717 ongeveer 'n jaar lank in die Bastille opgesluit waar hy baie gevangenes ontmoet het wat vermoedelik met die geheimsinnige gevangene in aanraking gekom het terwyl hy nog gelewe het. (Terloops, nog 'n prettige feit oor die beroemde denker van die verligting is dat Voltaire sy fortuin verdien het deur die lotery te help oprig.)

Die bestaan ​​van die man in die ystermasker word ook opgemerk deur ander historiese verwysings soos Le mémoire secret pour servir a l'histoire de la Percy deur 'n onbekende skrywer die geskrifte van een van die beroemdste joernaliste van die Franse Revolusie, Friedrich Melchior-Baron von Grimm en die persoonlike dagboek van Etienne de Junca, adjunk van die Bastille tydens die dood van die beroemde gevangene.

Die bron wat hierdie gevangene onder die massas beroemd gemaak het, was egter die boek van Alexandre Dumas, Die man in die ystermasker, wat die derde en laaste boek in die reeks was wat begin het Die Drie Musketiers. Alhoewel Dumas se boek hoofsaaklik as fiksie beskou word, bevat dit blykbaar nuttige historiese gegewens, terwyl die skrywer 'n deeglike ondersoek na die saak gedoen het. Die romans van die Fransman is dikwels geïnspireer deur regte menseverhale, waarna hy daarna fiktiewe verhale geskep het. (Dit is ook die geval met Die graaf van Monte Cristo, wat losweg gebaseer was op 'n * vermoedelik * regte man, ten minste volgens die skrywer van die werk wat Dumas gelees het, die polisie -argivaris Jacques Peuchet. Meer hieroor in die bonusfeite hieronder.)

Die bevel vir gevangenisstraf van Dauger is in elk geval gegee deur die Marquis de Louvois, minister van buitelandse sake van Louis XIV. In die bevel word onder meer genoem dat Dauger in gevangenisse met hoë sekuriteit gehou moet word, en dat hy met niemand in aanraking sou kom nie, maar 'n paar uitgesoekte persone. En as hy ooit durf praat van iets anders as sy onmiddellike behoeftes, moet hy dadelik tereggestel word.

Vir hierdie doel het hy dieselfde bewaarder vir die res van sy lewe gehad, die genoemde Franse gevangenisbewaarder Bénigne d'Auvergne de Saint-Mars, wat uiters ambisieus was, maar na bewering nie besonder helder of bekwaam was nie.

Maar soos met die meeste dinge aangaande die regte man, is dit uiters moeilik om die waarheid te vind tussen al die vroeë verslae. Terwyl daar byvoorbeeld beweer word dat hy beveel is om nooit met ander gevangenes in aanraking te kom nie en ook nie oor iets anders te praat as sy onmiddellike behoeftes nie, is dit op 'n stadium bekend dat Saint-Mars toestemming ontvang het dat Dauger 'n dienaar in die gevangenis van voormalige superintendent geword het van finansies (en medegevangene) Nicolas Fouquet, toe sy normale dienskneg siek was. Die enigste bepaling was dat hy niemand anders as Fouquet sou ontmoet nie. As daar ander was, sou Dauger nie daar wees nie. Waarom het Fouquet sulke toegang gekry? Daar word bespiegel dat dit is omdat Fouquet die res van sy lewe in die gevangenis sou deurbring, hoewel dit natuurlik nie sou verhinder dat hy briewe skryf of met ander vergader nie, wat die hele opheffing van die veronderstelde beperkings nog meer eienaardig maak.

Die feit dat Dauger aanvanklik as 'n valet aangewys is en later as een in die gevangenis gedien het, is ook betekenisvol, indien waar. Gegewe die protokolle van die eeue, sou hy koninklikes gewees het, of selfs net iemand met koninklike bloed, sou dit waarskynlik nie toegelaat gewees het nie. Iemand van die koninklike bloed wat lewenslank gevange geneem is op twyfelagtige aanklagte? Perfek (word gereeld aan bediendes gegee en baie van die voordele van adel). Onderworpe daaraan om 'n dienaar te word deur mede -koninklikes? Dit sou ondenkbaar gewees het.

Hoe dit ook al sy, die belangrikste rede waarom ons almal hierdie spesifieke gevangene onthou, in plaas van talle ander wat dieselfde lot gehad het, is sy masker. Waarom was sy gesig bedek en weggesteek vir die openbare oog? Sommige historici beweer dat dit niks anders as 'n truuk was waarmee die ambisieuse Bénigne d'Auvergne de Saint-Mars vorendag gekom het tydens die oordrag van die gevangene na Sainte-Marguerite in 1687 nie, sodat hy die skare kon beïndruk met die belangrikheid van die gevangene wat die koning self gehad het hom toevertrou om te waak. Dit was na hierdie reis dat die idee dat die gevangene gedwing was om 'n ystermasker te dra, eers begin sirkuleer.

Op 18 September 1698 is Saint-Mars weer oorgeplaas, en hierdie keer word hy die goewerneur van die Bastille in Parys, waarna Dauger weer saam met hom beweeg is. Volgens Voltaire en op sy beurt die gevangenes wat die man vermoedelik in die ystermasker by die Bastille gesien het, moes hierdie gevangene die masker te alle tye dra. Daar moet egter op gelet word dat bogenoemde luitenant du Junca wat by die Bastille gewerk het, opgemerk het dat die masker eintlik van swart fluweel was toe hy dit waarneem.

Uiteindelik sterf Dauger in die gevangenis op 19 November 1703. Saint-Mars beskryf hom as 'n 'ingesteldheid op die wil van God en die koning', ” anders as die meeste gevangenes

As dit waar is dat hy te alle tye gedwing was om 'n masker te dra, is die logiese gevolgtrekking, tesame met die feit dat hy 'n dienaar van Fouquet mag wees, miskien dat dit nie 'n groot geheim was nie, maar dat die die man agter die masker was herkenbaar of het 'n duidelike ooreenkoms met 'n ander persoon, waarskynlik een aan die bewind (hetsy uit verhouding of pure toeval.)

Maar die vraag bly: as hy net 'n geringe dienskneg was, wat óf die ongeluk gehad het om iets te sien wat die koning nie wyd bekend wou hê nie, of 'n gesig gehad het wat die koning of iemand anders aan bewind was, om watter rede ook al: waarom nie besluit die Franse owerhede eenvoudig om hom dood te maak? Diegene van die boereklas kan maklik vermoor word deur die bewindhebbers, met so min as 'n beskuldiging as om met die duiwel in verbinding te wees, onder talle ander verskonings. Waarom die risiko loop om hom lewendig te laat en die moeite en koste neem om hom so noukeurig te bewaak? En as hy van koninklike bloed was, waarom is hy toegelaat om as 'n dienskneg te funksioneer? As hy 'n groot geheim gehad het, waarom is hy toegelaat om gereeld met Fouquet in aanraking te kom, wat hy moontlik ook die geheim kan weggesteek het, en wat dit op sy beurt moontlik via briewe aan ander kon onthul het?

Nodeloos om te sê dat die feit dat min daarvan baie sin maak, tot talle teorieë en bespiegelinge gelei het, met min bewyse om enige daarvan te ondersteun. Volgens Voltaire was die man in die ystermasker die ouer, buite -egtelike broer van Lodewyk XIV (via kardinaal Mazarin en Anne van Oostenryk), terwyl die geheimsinnige gevangene volgens Dumas niemand anders was as die tweeling van Lodewyk XIV nie, wat minute ouer was en dus die wettige koning van Frankryk.

'N Ander teorie is dat hy eintlik die ware vader van koning Lodewyk XIV was. U sien, Louis XIII was nogal oud ten tyde van die geboorte van Louis XIV. Maar 'n erfgenaam was nodig, anders sou die broer van Louis XIII en Gaston d ’Orléans koning word, iets wat sekere magtige entiteite, soos kardinaal Richelieu en die koningin self, om verskillende politieke redes waarskynlik teen sou wees. Hierdie spesifieke teorie verklaar dus dat die kardinaal en Anne gereël het dat 'n ander man die kind verwek. Net soos met die ander teorieë, is daar min bewyse om dit te ondersteun, maar dit sou ten minste verklaar waarom die gevangene so lief sou wees vir die koning, alhoewel dieselfde koning hom lewenslank gevange gehou het. Sou 'n koning natuurlik werklik toelaat dat sy eie vader as 'n dienskneg funksioneer, as hy weet? En as hy nie geweet het nie, waarom sou hy hom aan die lewe hou of selfs in die gevangenis sit?

Een van die mees oortuigende teorieë tot dusver kom uit 'n gekodeerde boodskap wat koning Lodewyk XIV gestuur het oor generaal Vivien de Bulonde, wat die woede van die koning opgeroep het toe hy gevlug het vir die naderende troepe uit Oostenryk, die voorraad laat vaar en selfs gewonde soldate. Sodra die gekodeerde boodskap gekraak is, is dit onthul dat dit lui:

Sy Majesteit weet die gevolge van hierdie daad beter as enige ander persoon, en hy is ook bewus van hoe diep ons nalating om die plek in te neem ons saak sal benadeel, 'n mislukking wat gedurende die winter herstel moet word. Sy Majesteit wil hê dat u generaal Bulonde onmiddellik moet arresteer en laat lei na die vesting van Pignerole, waar hy snags onder 'n wag onder 'n wag opgesluit sal word, en dat u gedurende die dag met 'n 330 309 mag loop.

Wat is die 330 en 309? Die teorie beweer dat die 330 'n masker en '8221 en die 309 'n volledige stop beteken het, maar die bewyse hiervoor is meestal spekulasie.

Of die maskerdeel nou korrek is of nie (miskien het die koning net 'n voorliefde gehad om gevangenes wat hy regtig kwaad was, te bestel om maskers as straf te dra), die grootste probleem met hierdie teorie is dat rekords daarop dui dat generaal Vivien de Bulonde dit nie gedoen het nie. #8217 sterf tot 1709, terwyl die man in die “ -yster ” masker in 1703 gesterf het.

En wat van die naam, Eustache Dauger. Gee dit leidrade, of is dit bloot opgemaak? Dit is bekend dat 'n regte Eustache Dauger de Cavoye, die seun van 'n kaptein in die kardinaal Richelieu se wagte, bestaan ​​het, gebore in 1637. Verder het hy uiteindelik ook by die weermag aangesluit, maar uiteindelik moes hy in skande bedank nadat hy 'n jongmoord vermoor het. seuntjie in 'n dronk bakleiery. Later is hy opgesluit. Nadat hy by sy suster gekla het oor sy behandeling in die gevangenis in 1678 en kort daarna by die koning gekla het, het die koning wel 'n bevel uitgevaardig dat de Cavoye nie meer met iemand mag kommunikeer nie, tensy 'n priester daar was.

Die probleem met die de Cavoye-teorie is dat hy in Saint-Lazare aangehou is toe die man met die ystermasker in Pignerol was. Verder, buiten die feit dat de Cavoye nie onder die beskrywing van Saint-Mars “ wat aan die wil van God en die koning blootgestel is nie, onder andere, is daar aansienlike bewyse dat hy in die 1680's gesterf het, lank voor die meer bekende Eustache Dauger.

Op die ou end, terwyl ons nogal weet van die man in die ystermasker, of hy werklik skuldig was aan 'n wettige misdaad, wie hy werklik was, of dat hy werklik gedwing was om 'n strykyster te dra die masker sal die heeltyd nooit bekend wees nie. Dit is selfs moontlik dat hy eintlik net 'n ou was met die regte naam Eustache Dauger, en hy was eenvoudig 'n valet wat die koning kwaad gemaak het, maar nie genoeg om hom dood te maak nie. Al sou iemand raai hoekom so 'n probleem met 'n valet -rekening ondervind sou word. Miskien 'n verhouding met die gunsteling minnares van die koning? Wie weet? Maar aan die positiewe kant sorg dit beslis vir 'n interessante verhaal.

As u van hierdie artikel hou, kan u ook van ons nuwe gewilde podcast, The BrainFood Show (iTunes, Spotify, Google Play Music, Feed), hou:


Die man in die ystermasker: die ware verhaal van die bekendste gevangene in die geskiedenis en die vier Musketiers

Alexandre Dumas het gesê dat sy beroemde Three Musketeers nooit bestaan ​​het nie-maar Athos, Aramis en Porthos was vlees en bloed. Hul sogenaamde fiktiewe tweegeveg met kardinaal Richelieu se wagte het eintlik in 1640 plaasgevind, en Charles d'Artagnan, 'n tiener op sy eerste dag in Parys, het langs hulle baklei. Volgens die Oxford-historikus Roger Macdonald is verskeie ander elemente van die verhaal ook waar-die kardinaal se agent, Milady de Winter, was regtig 'n Engelse aristokraat, en teen alle kanse het die landseun d'Artagnan daarin geslaag om kaptein van die King's Musketeers te word , die enigste man op wie Lodewyk XIV kon vertrou om sy magtige predikant, Fouquet, te arresteer. Dit was d'Artagnan wat Fouquet na die gevreesde Alpe -vesting Pignerol begelei het, waarin die mees geheimsinnige gevangenes, die man in die ystermasker, geleef het. Macdonald het vyf jaar lank die fiksheid ontrafel om die ware verhaal van die Musketiers en hul band met die Man in the Iron Mask te onthul, 'n meer buitengewone werklikheid as wat Dumas kon dink.-Uitgewer se beskrywing

Toegangsbeperkte item waar Addeddate 2013-08-24 18:54:35 Bookplateleaf 0004 Boxid IA1101201 Boxid_2 CH1152504 Stad New York Skenker bostonpubliclibrary Eksterne identifikasie-urn: asin: 0786716061
urn: oclc: rekord: 1036718972 Extramarc Duke University Libraries Foldoutc 0 Identifier maninironmask00roge_0 Identifier-ark ark:/13960/t5s79fp7v Faktuur 1315 Isbn 0786716061
9780786716067 Ocr ABBYY FineReader 11.0 Openlibrary OL8141473M Openlibrary_edition OL8141473M Openlibrary_work OL4976097W Pages 386 Ppi 300 Related-external-id urn: isbn: 1845293002
urn: oclc: 227278154
urn: oclc: 587891150
urn: isbn: 1845291018
urn: oclc: 238752994
urn: oclc: 62091871 Republisher_date 20170605173334 Republisher_operator [email protected] Republisher_time 285 Scandate 20170604154105 Scanner ttscribe11.hongkong.archive.org Scanningcenter hongkong Shipping_container SZ0025 Worldcat1 (bron -uitgawe)

Geskiedenis

In 1662 het die drie musketiers afgetree. Aramis is nou 'n Jesuïet -priester, Porthos bedryf 'n bordeel, en Athos woon tuis saam met sy seun, Raoul. Die vierde musketier, D'Artagnan, is nou die kaptein van die wag. Terwyl hy 'n oorlog voer, stuur Louis selfsugtig al die kos na sy leër en terwyl die inwoners van Parys honger ly en vrot kos eet. Die Jesuïete het aksie geneem en probeer om die koning te vermoor, maar sonder geluk. Louis stel Aramis aan om die generaal van die Orde van Jesuïete te vind en om hom dood te maak, sonder dat hy weet dat Aramis die generaal is. Tydens die partytjie bring Raoul sy verloofde Christine, op wie die koning verlief raak. Terwyl hy met haar flirt, probeer 'n Jesuïet vermom as 'n musketier Louis doodmaak, maar word deur D'Artagnan vermoor.

Dae later het burgers saam oproerig na die paleis gekla dat hulle vrot kos gekry het. D'Artagnan verstaan ​​hul saak en belowe hulle om van Louis te verander. D'Artagnan sê vir Louis wat saamstem, maar sê vir sy adviseurs om eerder die oproeriges te skiet. In teenstelling met die wense van D'Artagnan stel Louis Raoul aan die voorkant op om hom te laat vermoor, sodat hy 'n kans met Christine kan kry. Raoul word in die geveg doodgemaak en Athos arriveer by die paleis wat bedoel is om Louis te vermoor, maar word deur D'Artagnan gestop. Omdat Christine nie daarvan bewus was dat Louis Raoul doelbewus na die voorkant stuur nie, word sy uitgenooi na die paleis waar Louis haar verlei en haar as sy minnares beweer. Aramis roep 'n geheime vergadering van die 4 musketiers op en beplan 'n plan om die koning te vervang waartoe D'Artagnan weier en sê dat hy die koning om onbekende persoonlike redes sal beskerm. Die drie musketiers sluip in 'n gevangenis in en bevry 'n man met 'n ystermasker wat na bewering Phillippe, Louis se tweelingbroer, is. Louis het hom gevange gehou sodat niemand sy plek kon inneem nie. Aramis stuur 'n replika van die masker na Louis, wat hom laat dink dat sy broer nou dood is en Christine begin nadink oor haar verhouding met Louis.

Om sy gemoedere op te lig, gooi Louis die volgende aand 'n maskeradebal waarna die musketiers van plan is om die skakelaar onder die dekmantel van die maskers te maak. Die musketiers woon die bal by en dra replika's van die masker van Phillippe, wat Louis wanvoorstel en hom na sy kamers laat terugtrek. Die drie gryp Louis en maak die skakelaar. Phillippe doen dit baie goed, maar 'n ontstelde Christine, onbewus van die skakelaar, veroorsaak 'n toneel en veroordeel hom vir wat Louis met Raoul gedoen het. Phillippe kalmeer haar, wat D'Artagnan laat besef dat Phillippe nie Louis is nie. Die muskieters probeer deur die rivier sluip, maar word omring deur D'Artagnan en sy manne. Hulle word gedwing om weer oor te skakel, maar die wagte vang Phillippe terwyl die ander ontsnap. D'Artagnan verneem dat Phillippe die broer van Louis is en Louis verneem dat hul ma ingestem het tot die oorskakeling. D'Artagnan smeek Louis om die lewe van Phillippe te red, maar die koning weier en laat Phillippe na die bastille terugbring en vir ewig in die masker bly. Louis vertrou nie meer D'Artagnan nie, maar die tweede bevelvoerder waarsku hom wanneer D'Artagnan êrens heen gaan.

Omstreeks middernag breek die vier musketiers by die bastille in en bevry Phillippe, maar word vasgevang deur Louis en die wagte. D'Artagnan onthul aan die ander dat hy die geboortepa van Phillippe en Louis is, en dat hulle 'n laaste staanplek moet aankla en moet gaan veg. Terwyl hulle aankla, beveel Louis sy manne om hulle neer te skiet, maar hulle slaag nie daarin nie en hulle mis. Louis, nou gefrustreerd, gryp 'n dolk en probeer Phillippe steek, maar D'Artagnan offer homself op en word in die rug gesteek. 'N Woedende Phillippe spring Louis en probeer hom doodmaak, maar D'Artagnan keer hom en herinner hom daaraan dat hulle broers is. D'Artagnan sterf dan en sy tweede in bevel hoek Louis, woedend dat hy sy afgod vermoor het en die musketiers help om die skakelaar te maak. As die res van die wagte die agterdeur versper, word die skakelaar gemaak en Louis, nou in die masker, probeer verduidelik, maar word stil. Phillippe beveel dat hy deur 'n doofstom gevoed moet word, sodat niemand hom kan hoor skree nie en Louis word weggeneem terwyl hy gedempte blaasbalk maak. Aan die einde van die film verduidelik Aramis, wat die verhaal vertel, dat daar gefluister is dat Louis volle vergifnis gekry het en die res van sy lewe in die eensaamheid op die platteland gewoon het, maar steeds in die masker was en nooit gevind en nooit teruggekeer. Phillippe het 'n beter Lodewyk XIV geword en sal onthou word as een van Frankryk se grootste konings.


Samesweringsteorieë

Die geheimsinnige gevangene het geleef tydens die bewind van Lodewyk XIV. Vir sy ondersteuners was Louis le Roi Soleil - die sonkoning - in wie se bewind Frankryk haar grense uitgebrei en versterk het. Vir sy afvalliges was hy 'n byna tiran, wie se geloof in absolutisme - die idee dat hy as God se verteenwoordiger op aarde regeer het - Frankryk in 'n polisiestaat verander het.

Na sy dood het die verhaal van die onbekende gevangene 'n eie lewe begin neem, aangesien skinderbekke gesê het dat sy straf direk van die Franse troon afkomstig is. Van die begin af was die verhale van die 'gemaskerde man' meer as net onstuimige verhale: hulle het direk gespeel teen propaganda teen Louis. Tydens die Negejarige Oorlog (1688-1697) het die Nederlanders, wat veg om hul republiek teen die Franse uitbreiding te beskerm, die gerug uitgebuit om die legitimiteit van Lodewyk XIV te ondermyn. Agente van die Nederlanders versprei beweer dat die gemaskerde gevangene 'n voormalige minnaar van die koninginmoeder was en die regte vader van die koning was - wat Louis onwettig sou maak.

In Frankryk self het die vermoede oor die man se identiteit op verskeie lede van die uitgebreide koninklike familie geval. Daar was bespiegelinge dat hy Louis de Bourbon, graaf van Vermandois, seun van die sonkoning self en sy minnares Louise de La Vallière was. Louis de Bourbon is uit die hof verban nadat hy homoseksueel was. De Bourbon het daarna probeer om sy vader se guns te herwin in veldtogte in Vlaandere, waar hy siek geword het en byna seker gesterf het. Samesweringsteoretici het bespiegel dat hy in werklikheid oorleef het en in die geheim deur sy pa opgesluit is.


Was Eustache Dauger die man in die ystermasker?

Tot vandag toe bly Dauger die waarskynlikste kandidaat. Hy was 'n ware historiese persoon wat lank gevange gehou is, en die meeste moderne historici meen dat hy af en toe 'n fluweelmasker gedra het. Blykbaar was Dauger kardinaal Mazarin & rsquos -valet. Mazarin was die belangrikste minister van Frankryk tydens die bewind van Lodewyk XIV en het 'n groot fortuin opgebou. Dit lyk waarskynlik dat Mazarin van verskeie Europese monarge gesteel het, wat Dauger daarvan uitgevind het en tot stilte gedreig is.

Die Pignerol -gevangenis is gebruik om mans wat as 'n verleentheid vir die staat beskou word, te huisves, sodat dit slegs 'n handjievol gevangenes te alle tye gehou het. Dauger was nie altyd weggehou van die ander gevangenes tydens sy tyd daar nie en het selfs as dienskneg gewerk vir 'n ander gevangene, die markies van Belle-Ile, Nicholas Fouquet. Oor die algemeen het welgestelde gevangenes in Pignerol slawe gehad, maar aangesien hierdie mans self byna gevangenes geword het, was dit hul rol, was dit moeilik om iemand te vind wat bereid was om die pos aan te pak.

Toe die dienaar van Fouquet & rsquos gereeld siek word, het Saint-Mars toestemming gevra om Dauger as nuwe bediende van Fouquet & rsquos aan te stel. Toe Saint-Mars 'n rol in 'n nuwe gevangenis kry, het hy Dauger saamgeneem. Die ongelukkige man beland in verskeie gevangenisse voordat hy op 19 November 1703 in die Bastille sterf. Selfs as Dauger die man in die ystermasker was, is die rede vir sy gevangenisstraf moeiliker om vas te stel. Daar is gerugte dat hy byvoorbeeld 'n bladseun in 1665 vermoor het. As niks anders nie, sorg dit vir 'n fantastiese historiese verhaal, selfs al is die identiteit van die mens waarskynlik onthul.


Die man in die ystermasker

Ons redakteurs gaan na wat u ingedien het, en bepaal of hulle die artikel moet hersien.

Die man in die ystermasker, Frans l’homme au masque de fer, (gebore c. 1658? - oorlede op 19 November 1703, Parys, Frankryk), politieke gevangene, beroemd in die Franse geskiedenis en legende, wat in 1703 tydens die bewind van Lodewyk XIV in die Bastille gesterf het. Daar is geen historiese bewyse dat die masker van alles behalwe swart fluweel gemaak is nie (velours), en eers daarna het die legende sy materiaal in yster omskep.

Hy is eers voor 1681 in Pignerol (Pinerolo, in Piemonte) opgesluit, daarna in ander gevangenisse voordat hy uiteindelik op 18 September 1698 na die Bastille in Parys oorgeplaas is. Hy sterf daar op 19 November 1703. Die volgende dag begrawe in die op die begraafplaas van Saint-Paul, is hy daar geregistreer onder die naam 'Marchioly', en sy ouderdom is aangegee as 'ongeveer 45'. Sy verskeie bewegings gedurende sy leeftyd stem ooreen met die opeenvolgende plasings van die gevangenisbestuurder Bénigne d'Auvergne de Saint-Mars, in wie se klag hy blykbaar veral toegewyd was.

Die identiteit van die man in die masker was voor sy dood reeds 'n raaisel, en vanaf die 18de eeu is verskeie voorstelle oor sy identiteit gemaak: in 1711, 'n Engelse edelman in 1745, Louis de Bourbon, comte de Vermandois, 'n seun van Louis XIV en Louise de La Vallière tussen 1738 en 1771, 'n ouer broer van Louis XIV (Voltaire het hierdie onwaarskynlike oplossing gewild gemaak, wat later deur Alexandre Dumas opgeneem is in Dix Ans plus tard ou le Vicomte de Bragelonne [1848–50], in Engels vertaal as Die man in die ystermasker) in 1883 Molière, gevange geneem deur die Jesuïete in wraak vir Tartuffe. Van die dosyn of meer hipoteses het slegs twee bewysbaar standpunte: dié vir Ercole Matthioli en vir Eustache Dauger.

Matthioli, 'n predikant van Ferdinand Charles, hertog van Mantua, is met die geheime onderhandeling van die verdrag van 1678 toevertrou, waardeur die verarmde hertog die vesting van Casale aan Frankryk sou oorgee in ruil vir 100,000 écus, maar sodra die ooreenkoms onderteken is, het Matthioli die uitwerking daarvan nietig verklaar deur die geheim aan verskeie buitelandse howe te verraai. Woedend omdat hy mislei is, het Lodewyk XIV hom stil laat ontvoer en in Pinerolo (1679) opgesluit. Daar word egter algemeen saamgestem dat Matthioli in April 1694 in die Sles Sainte-Marguerite gesterf het en dat die gevangene in die masker Eustache Dauger was.

Die briefwisseling van Louis XIV se minister Louvois dui aan dat Dauger, 'n valet, op sy bevel weens 'n onbekende rede naby Duinkerken in Julie 1669 gearresteer is. By Pinerolo was Dauger diensster van 'n ander gevangene, Nicolas Fouquet, en na Fouquet se dood in 1680 is in 'n noue opsluiting gehou met 'n ander man wat ook Fouquet bedien het. Vanaf Pinerolo het Saint-Mars hom in 1681 na Exilles geneem (terwyl Matthioli toe agtergebly het), voordat hy in 1687 na die Îles verhuis het. geheime wat Fouquet vir hulle kon vertel het. Miskien verklaar hierdie oorweging, eerder as sy oorspronklike misdaad, die absolute geheimhouding waarvoor Dauger veroordeel is en die voorsorgmaatreël van die masker.


Man in die ystermasker

The Man in the Iron Mask (Frans: L'Homme au Masque de Fer) is 'n naam wat gegee word aan 'n gevangene wat in 1669 as Eustache Dauger gearresteer is, wat in 'n aantal gevangenisse aangehou is, waaronder die Bastille en die vesting van Pignerol (vandag Pinerolo) , aangesien hy altyd vir 34 jaar in die bewaring van Bénigne Dauvergne de Saint-Mars gehou is en wat op 19 November 1703 onder die naam Marchioly gesterf het tydens die bewind van Lodewyk XIV van Frankryk 1643-1715. Die moontlike identiteit van hierdie man is deeglik bespreek en was die onderwerp van baie boeke, hoofsaaklik omdat niemand ooit sy gesig gesien het nie, wat deur 'n masker van swart fluweeldoek versteek was.

In die tweede uitgawe van sy Questions sur l'Encyclopédie (Frans vir "Questions on the Encyclopaedia"), gepubliseer in 1771, beweer die skrywer en filosoof Voltaire dat die gevangene 'n ystermasker gedra het en die ouer, buite -egtelike broer van Louis XIV was. In die laat 1840's brei die skrywer Alexandre Dumas die tema uit in die laaste aflewering van sy Three Musketeers -sage: hier word die gevangene gedwing om 'n ystermasker te dra en is die tweelingbroer van Louis XIV.

Wat die werklike feite oor hierdie gevangene bekend is, is hoofsaaklik gebaseer op korrespondensie tussen sy tronkbewaarder en sy meerderes in Parys.

Die eerste rekords van die gemaskerde gevangene is van einde Julie 1669, toe die minister van Louis XIV, die markies de Louvois, 'n brief gestuur het aan Bénigne Dauvergne de Saint-Mars, goewerneur van die gevangenis van Pignerol, destyds deel van Frankryk. In sy brief het Louvois Saint-Mars meegedeel dat 'n gevangene met die naam Eustache Dauger in die volgende maand of wat sou aankom.

Louvois instructed Saint-Mars to prepare a cell with multiple doors, one closing upon the other, which were to prevent anyone from the outside listening in. Saint-Mars himself was to see Dauger only once a day in order to provide food and whatever else he needed. Dauger was also to be told that if he spoke of anything other than his immediate needs he would be killed, but, according to Louvois, the prisoner should not require much since he was "only a valet".

Historians have noted that the name Eustache Dauger was written in a different handwriting to the rest of the text, suggesting that while a clerk wrote the letter under Louvois's dictation, a third party, very likely the minister himself, added the name afterwards.

The man himself was arrested by Captain Alexandre de Vauroy, garrison commander of Dunkirk, and taken to Pignerol where he arrived in late August. Evidence has been produced to suggest that the arrest was actually made in Calais and that not even the local governor was informed of the event — Vauroy's absence being explained away by him hunting for Spanish soldiers who had strayed into France via the Spanish Netherlands.

The first rumours of the prisoner's identity (as a Marshal of France) began to circulate at this point. According to many versions of this legend, the prisoner wore the mask at all times. It is more probable that he was masked only during transport, such as when he was taken from prison to prison, and when there were outside visitors to the jail.

The prison at Pignerol, like the others at which Dauger was later held, was used for men who were considered an embarrassment to the state and usually only had a handful of prisoners at a time.

Saint-Mars's other prisoners at Pignerol included Count Ercole Antonio Mattioli (or Matthioli), an Italian diplomat who had been kidnapped and jailed for double-crossing the French over the purchase of the important fortress town of Casale on the Italian border. There was also Nicolas Fouquet, Marquis of Belle-Île, a former government minister, surintendant des finances, who had been jailed by Louis XIV on the charge of embezzlement and the Marquis de Lauzun, who had become engaged to the Duchess of Montpensier, a cousin of the King, without the King's consent. Fouquet's cell was above that of Lauzun.

In his letters to Louvois, Saint-Mars describes Dauger as a quiet man, giving no trouble, "disposed to the will of God and to the king", compared to his other prisoners who were either always complaining, constantly trying to escape, or simply mad.

Dauger was not always isolated from the other prisoners. Wealthy and important ones usually had manservants Fouquet for instance was served by a man called La Rivière. These servants, however, would become as much prisoners as their masters and it was thus difficult to find people willing to volunteer for such an occupation. Since La Rivière was often ill, Saint-Mars applied for permission for Dauger to act as servant for Fouquet. In 1675 Louvois gave permission for such an arrangement on condition that he was only to serve Fouquet while La Rivière was unavailable and that he was not to meet anyone else for instance, if Fouquet and Lauzun were to meet, Dauger was not to be present.

The fact that the man in the mask served as a valet is an important one. Fouquet was never expected to be released, thus meeting Dauger was no great matter, but Lauzun was expected to be set free eventually and it would have been important not to have him spread rumours of Dauger's existence. Historians have also argued that 17th-century protocol made it unthinkable that a man of royal blood would serve as a manservant — thus very much discrediting those suggestions that Dauger was in any way related to the king.

After Fouquet's death in 1680, Saint-Mars discovered a secret hole between Fouquet and Lauzun's cells. He was sure that they had communicated through this hole without supervision by him or his guards and thus that Lauzun must have been made aware of Dauger's existence. Louvois instructed Saint-Mars to move Lauzun to Fouquet's cell and to tell him that Dauger and La Rivière had been released. In fact they were held in another cell in another part of the prison, their presence there being highly secret.

Lauzun was freed in 1681. Later that same year Saint-Mars was appointed governor of the prison fortress of Exiles (now Exilles in Italy). He went there, taking Dauger and La Riviere with him. La Riviere's death was reported in January 1687 and in May Saint-Mars and Dauger moved to Sainte-Marguerite, one of the Lérins Islands.

It was during the journey to Sainte-Marguerite that rumours spread that the prisoner was wearing an iron mask. Again, he was placed in a cell with multiple doors.

On September 18, 1698, Saint-Mars took up his new post as governor of the Bastille prison in Paris, bringing the masked prisoner with him. He was placed in a solitary cell in the pre-furnished third chamber of the Bertaudière tower. The prison's second-in-command, de Rosarges, was to feed him. Lieutenant du Junca, another officer of the Bastille, noted that the prisoner wore "a mask of black velvet".

The prisoner died on November 19, 1703, and was buried the next day under the name of Marchioly. All his furniture and clothing were reportedly destroyed afterwards.

In 1711, King Louis's sister-in-law, the Princess Palatine, sent a letter to her aunt, Sophia, Electress of Hanover, stating that the prisoner had "two musketeers at his side to kill him if he removed his mask". She described him as very devout, and that he was well treated and received everything he desired. It might be noted though that the prisoner had already been dead for eight years and that the Princess had not necessarily seen him for herself. She was quite likely reporting on rumors she had heard at court.

The fate of the mysterious prisoner — and the extent of apparent precautions his jailers took — created much interest and many legends. There are almost a hundred theories in existence and many books have been written about the case. Some were presented after the existence of the letters was widely known. Later commentators have still presented their own theories, possibly based on embellished versions of the original tale.

Theories about his identity made at the time included that he was a Marshal of France or the English Richard Cromwell, son of Oliver Cromwell or François, Duke of Beaufort. Later, many people such as Voltaire and Alexandre Dumas put forward other theories about the man in the mask.

It has even been suggested that he was one of the other famous contemporary prisoners being held at Pignerol at the same time as Dauger.

The King's relative Voltaire claimed that the prisoner was a son of Anne of Austria and Cardinal Mazarin, and therefore an illegitimate half-brother of King Louis XIV. How serious he was is hard to say. Alexandre Dumas used this theory in his book, The Vicomte de Bragelonne, but made the prisoner a twin brother. It is this book that has been adapted for the many film versions of the story.

Hugh Ross Williamson argues that the man in the iron mask was actually the father of Louis XIV. According to this theory, the 'miraculous' birth of Louis XIV in 1638, after Louis XIII had been estranged from his wife for over twenty years, implies that Louis XIII was not the father.

The suggestion is that the King's minister, Cardinal Richelieu, had arranged for a substitute, probably an illegitimate son or grandson of Henry IV, to become intimate with the Queen, and father an heir. At the time, the heir presumptive was Louis XIII's brother Gaston d'Orléans, who was also Richelieu's enemy. If Gaston became King, Richelieu would quite likely have lost both his job as minister and his life, so it was in his interests to thwart Gaston's ambitions. Louis XIII also hated Gaston and might thus have agreed to the scheme.

Supposedly the father then left for the Americas, but in the 1660s returned to France with the aim of extorting money for keeping his secret, and was promptly imprisoned. This theory would explain both the secrecy surrounding the prisoner, whose true identity would have destroyed the legitimacy of Louis XIV had it been revealed, and (because of the King's respect for his own father) the comfort of the terms of his imprisonment.

Lending credence to the theory that the man in the mask was the father of Louis XIV are the facts recorded by Will and Ariel Durant. Louis XIII was known to be a flamboyant homosexual who could not tolerate the presence of women. He scandalized visiting dignitaries by receiving them while viewing pornographic homosexual theatrical productions created for his entertainment, avoiding attempts by Richelieu to try to get the Queen under the same roof as the King for at least one night. Finally the Queen and her retinue arrived at the same location as the King and it was on that occasion (and perhaps for several days after) that Louis, willing to sacrifice all for the royal succession, bedded the Queen. Within a normal interim the Queen gave birth to the child who became Louis XIV. When the marked resemblance to the actual father became evident it was deemed necessary to keep his identity a state secret.

Later, when the King's flagrant indiscretions became so widely known that the stability of the throne was threatened, it was decided to acknowledge many of the so-called illegitimate heirs of Louis XIII. Such claims were commonly made by women who had been alone with a king for any reason. By that means the public could dismiss the unacceptable moral situation described in the darker rumors about him. As a result even many otherwise responsible genealogists today accept these illegitimate "heirs" of Louis XIII.

In 1890 Louis Gendron, a French military historian, came across some coded letters and passed them on to Etienne Bazeries in the French Army's cryptographic department. After three years Bazeries managed to read some messages in the Great Cipher of Louis XIV. One of them referred to a prisoner and identified him as General Vivien de Bulonde. One of the letters written by Louvois made specific reference to de Bulonde's crime.

At the Siege of Cuneo in 1691, Bulonde was concerned about enemy troops arriving from Austria and ordered a hasty withdrawal, leaving behind his munitions and wounded men. Louis XIV was furious and in another of the letters specifically ordered him "to be conducted to the fortress at Pignerol where he will be locked in a cell and under guard at night, and permitted to walk the battlements during the day with a 330 309". It has been suggested that the "330" stood for masque and the 309 for "full stop". The dates of the letters fit the dates of the original records about the man in the mask. However, in 17th-century French avec un masque would mean "with a person in a mask".

Some believe that the evidence of the letters means that there is now little need of an alternative explanation for the man in the mask. Other sources, however, claim that Bulonde's arrest was no secret, was actually published in a newspaper at the time and that he was released after just a few months. His death is also recorded as happening in 1709, six years after that of the man in the mask.

In 1801 revolutionary legislator Roux Fazaillac stated that the tale of the masked prisoner was an amalgamation of the fates of two separate prisoners, Ercole Antonio Mattioli (see below) and an imprisoned valet named "Eustache D'auger".

Andrew Lang, in his The Valet's Tragedy and Other Stories (1903), presented a theory that "Eustache Dauger" was a prison pseudonym of a man called "Martin", valet of the Huguenot Roux de Marsilly. After his master's execution in 1669 the valet was taken to France, possibly by capture or subterfuge, and imprisoned because he might have known too much about his master's affairs.

In The Man of the Mask (1908), Arthur Barnes presents James de la Cloche, the alleged illegitimate son of the reluctant Protestant Charles II of England, who would have been his father's secret intermediary with the Catholic court of France. Louis XIV could have imprisoned him because he knew too much about French affairs with England.

One of Charles's confirmed illegitimate sons has also been proposed as the man in the mask. This was the Duke of Monmouth. A Protestant, he led a rebellion against his uncle, the Catholic King James II. The rebellion failed and Monmouth was executed in 1685. But in 1768 a writer named Saint-Foix claimed that another man was executed in his place and that Monmouth became the masked prisoner, it being in Louis XIV's interests to assist a fellow Catholic like James who would not necessarily want to kill his own nephew. (Saint-Foix's case was based on unsubstantiated rumours, and allegations that Monmouth's execution was faked.)

The government minister Other popular suspects have included men known to have been held at Pignerol at the same time as Dauger. Fouquet himself has been considered, but the fact that Dauger is known to have served as his valet makes this unlikely. During the taking of the Bastille during the French Revolution of 1789, it was reported that a skeleton was found, still chained to the wall, and with an iron mask next to him. An inscription claimed that his name was "Fouquet".

This discovery has since been discredited, however, and it is supposed that it was an attempt by the leaders of the Revolution to make up for the fact that there were no actual political prisoners in the Bastille at the time of its taking. In fact there were only a handful of people serving time for forgery and a couple of lunatics.

Another candidate, much favoured in the 19th-century, was Fouquet's fellow prisoner Count Ercole Antonio Mattioli (or Matthioli). He was an Italian diplomat who, in 1678, acted on behalf of the debt-ridden Charles IV, Duke of Mantua, in the selling of Casale, a strategic fortified town near the border with France. Because a French occupation would be unpopular, discretion was essential, but, after pocketing his commission once the sale had been concluded, Mattioli leaked the details to France's Spanish enemies who made a bid of their own before the French forces could occupy the town. Mattioli was kidnapped by the French and thrown into nearby Pignerol in April 1679. The French took possession of Casale two years later.

Since the prisoner is known to have been buried under the name "Marchioly", many believe that this is proof enough that he was the man in the mask. The Hon George Agar Ellis reached the conclusion that Mattioli was the state prisoner commonly called The Iron Mask when he reviewed documents extracted from French archives in the 1820s. His book, published in English in 1826, was also translated into French and published in 1830. The German historian, Wilhelm Broecking came to the same conclusion independently seventy years later.

Since that time, letters purportedly sent by Saint-Mars, which earlier historians evidently missed, indicate that Mattioli was only held at Pignerol and Sainte-Marguerite. He was never at Exiles or the Bastille and therefore it is argued that he can be discounted.


Was the story of the Man in the Iron Mask based on a real person?

The Man in the Iron Mask is a name given to a mysterious prisoner in seventeenth-century France. His identity has never been established, and this mysterious individual has intrigued writers and others since the early 1700s. Once it was believed that the story was only a myth, a literary fiction but it is now accepted that the unknown prisoner was a historical figure. The name of the inmate was kept an official secret, and this has spawned a debate as to his real identity.

The riddle of the identity of the Man in the Iron Mask is something that has fascinated writers of the stature of Voltaire. In the 19th century, Alexander Dumas wrote about him in one of his novels, which has been adapted into several movies. This article will examine the background to the story and narrate what is known for a fact about this mysterious prisoner. Then it will offer an overview of some of the main theories on the identity of the convict and the reasons as to why he was incarcerated.

The historical background

The Man in the Iron Mask was confined in the French penal system between 1669 and 1703, the year in which he died. At this time, France was ruled by Louis XIV (1638-1715), who is often known as the ‘Sun King’. He was monarch of France from a very young age. In his childhood, his realm was engulfed by civil wars, known as the Frondes, and they shaped the philosophy of Louis XIV.

When he became king, Louis set out to become the absolute ruler of the state and he brooked no opposition. He curtailed the power of the nobility and the cities. Louis even quarreled with the Pope and limited the influence of the Church in France. The king made his kingdom the greatest nation in Europe and initiated a golden age in the arts and culture. He was the monarch who built the great palace at Versailles, near Paris.

Maar. Louis was an autocrat and he dominated the state and his word was the law. Anyone who offended his Royal Majesty or disobeyed his wishes could face banishment or imprisonment. There is evidence that suggests that Louis XIV was responsible for the imprisonment of the Man in the Iron Mask. The detention of a man without trial or any public record is typical of the authoritarianism of the Sun King.

The Man in the Iron Mask

The latest research based on material released by the National Archives in Paris in 2015, has added much to our knowledge of the mysterious individual. All we know about the enigmatic prisoner is from the correspondence of the jail governor Bénigne d'Auvergne de Saint-Mars and an inventory of the goods of the inmate. In 1669 he was governor of the prison of Pignerol which is today near Turin, Italy but in the seventeenth century was part of the Kingdom of France. A Royal minister gave the governor a set of strict instructions with regard as to how the prisoner be treated. [1]

The jailer was informed that his new prisoner was not a person of high rank and was to be kept in solitary confinement and forbidden to converse with any other person, no exceptions. He was to be kept locked behind several doors so that he could not communicate with anyone else in prison. The jailer himself was under strict instruction not to speak with him. It was made clear that he was a prisoner of state and this meant that he had no legal rights and was completely under the jurisdiction of the monarch. [2]

The name of the prisoner on the document was Eustache Dauger, and it appears that he was arrested in Calais or Dunkirk, both ports in the North of France, and this may indicate that the prisoner had been trying to flee to England. In August 1669, the individual was sent across France to the prison-fortress at Pignerol. This prison was one of the most notorious in France because it held so many inmates that were considered to be politically sensitive. Pignerol held only a few dozen inmates including a former Finance Minister and a noble who became engaged to the King’s cousin without his consent. The prisoner known as Dauger was despite the orders of the Minister in Paris, able to mingle with other prisoners.

However, it appears that he was kept under strict surveillance at all times. He was the valet to an imprisoned Minister for a time and was a model prisoner, and it appears that he was a very religious man. Saint-Mars was later appointed the governor of Sainte-Marguerite prison on one of the Lérins Islands, off the Rivera coast. He took the prisoner known as Dauger with him and one inmate who had communicated with him. During the journey from Pingerol to the island prison stores circulated about an inmate who was masked. [3]

It appears that Dauger was masked at all times and that he wore a velvet mask. It should be noted that Voltaire claimed that the inmate did not wear a velvet mask, but Alexander Dumas later popularized one that was made of iron and which prevented him from speaking and this claim. The convict was detained on the island until 1689 when his jailer was transferred to the notorious Bastille in Paris. He was kept in a tower and solitary confinement, and his food was delivered to him by the Deputy Governor of the prison. [4] His cell was spartan, and he had little food, and he must have endured a wretched existence.

The inmate known as Dauger died alone in November 1703. He had spent 34 years in prison. Interestingly he was buried under the name of Marchioly, and not Dauger. His former cell was stripped, and its walls whitewashed the warders burned all his belongings. By the time of his death, it seems that many people had become aware of the Man in the Iron Mask and his life and alleged crimes, became a subject of gossip and inspired many conspiracy theories. [5]

The Royal Theory

In the years after the death of the prisoner in a bare cell, there emerge several theories as to the identity of the prisoner. Many assumed that there was some sort of a relationship between the king and the prisoner. One that was proposed in the 18th century was that the prisoner was the elder twin of Louis XIV and therefore the legitimate monarch. This was popularized by Dumas in his novel. [6] He was kept in an iron mask so that no-one would recognize him. According to this theory, Louis XIV was not able to bring himself to kill his twin and devised the idea of imprisoning him and disguising his identity. Several writers believe that the disguised inmate who died alone in the Bastille was, in reality, the real father of Louis XIV. The ‘Sun King’ was born to Louis XIII (1601-1643) and his wife of Anne of Austria (1615-1666).

There are those who have speculated that Louis XIII could not have children and that Anne had taken a lover, who was the real father of the future ‘Sun King’. This individual was imprisoned and kept in isolation so that he would not tell anyone that he was the former lover of the Queen and the birth father of Louis XIV. Voltaire argued that the mysterious prisoner was the illegitimate half-brother of the king who ruled France for so many decades. [7] The great philosopher stated that the masked inmate was born from an affair between the powerful Cardinal Mazarin (1602-1661) and Queen Anne of Austria.

There is no real evidence that the Man in the Mask was related to the French Royal Family. [8] It is highly unlikely that he was the twin of Louis XIV or his natural father. The main argument against this is the fact that the prisoner known as Dauger or Marchioly served as a valet during his time in prison, based on official records. Seventeenth-century France was obsessed with status, and it would have been unthinkable for a member of the Royal family to work as a servant. It would not only have dishonored him but every Royal. Despite the popularity of the theory, it seems highly unlikely that the prisoner was related to the French monarch.

An Italian diplomat

In the 19th century, many writers argued that an Italian aristocrat was the Man in the Iron Mask. This was Count Ercole Antonio Mattioli, a leading diplomat. He was paid, a small fortune by the French to help them to secure a key fortress in Italy by diplomatic means. Mattioli was able to persuade the Duke of Mantua to give up the fortress to the French in return for a generous payment.

The Italian Count was duplicitous, and he informed the arch-enemies of Louis XIV, the Spanish of the deal and they tried to stop the French from occupying the key stronghold. [9] When the French king heard of this he grew outraged and he is alleged to have had the Count imprisoned and placed in a mask. Yet the evidence for this is scant and thought to be unreliable.

The real Eustache Dauger

Seventeenth century France was a pleasure-loving and decadent society. The elite in Paris was notorious for their scandalous lifestyles and their extravagance, something that not even Louis XIV could halt. One notorious figure at this time was Eustache Dauger de Cavoye. This is by coincidence almost the same name as the Man in the Iron Mask, according to official documents. The infamous de Cavoye was involved in several sex scandals and even a murder. [10] However, it may have been his role in the Affair of the Poisons that may have landed him in jail. This was a scandal that involved aristocrats murdering rivals with poison. These individuals were also accused of witchcraft, holding black masses and even allegations of Satanism.

Recent research has shown that Dauger de Cavoye died of alcoholism sometime in the 1680s. Some researchers have claimed that the Eustache Dauger, named in official documents as the prisoner, was, in reality, a valet to the great Cardinal Mazarin. When Louis XIV was a child, and too young to rule, Mazarin was the de-facto ruler of the kingdom. He was allegedly very corrupt and reputed to be the lover of Anne of Austria. There are some who believe that the Man in the Iron Mask was the Dauger who was the valet to the powerful Cardinal. It is speculated that the valet found out some secret about Mazarin’s financial dealings or about his alleged affair with the mother of Louis XIV. The fact that he worked as a servant during his captivity makes this theory one of the most plausible. [11]

Afsluiting

The answer to the question as to who ‘Was the Man in the Iron Mask’, is simple. We do not know, and it is unlikely that we will ever find out. Despite the discovery of new documents in recent years throwing more light on the case, the mystery has not been satisfactorily solved. All that we can say for certain is that there was a figure who was masked and who was detained in mysterious circumstances until his death. Other than that, we simply do not know for certain. It seems likely that the man had some secrets that would have damaged the French king or had offended him in some way. Unless there is the discovery of some document we may never solve this historical mystery.

Verdere leeswerk

Dumas, Alexander, The Vicomte de Bragelonne: Ten Years Later (Paris,1850).

Dumas, Alexander, The Man in the Iron Mask (London, Penguin, 2001).

Rowen, Herbert H. "L'Etat c'est a moi": Louis XIV and the State." French Historical Studies 2, no. 1 (1961): 83.


Kyk die video: The Man in the Iron Mask 212 Movie CLIP - Philippe Is Freed From the Iron Mask 1998 HD (November 2021).