Online Encyclopedia
Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
IRON MASK (masque de fer)
Online EncyclopediaEncyclopedia Home :: INV-JED
del.icio.us it!
|
See also:IRON See also:MASK (masque de fer)
.
The identity of the " See also:man in the See also:iron See also:mask " is a famous See also:historical See also:mystery
.
The See also:person so called was a See also:political prisoner under See also:
In 1711 the Princess See also:Palatine wrote to the Electress See also:Sophia of See also:Hanover, and suggested that he was an See also:English nobleman who had taken See also:part in a See also:plot of the See also:duke of See also:Berwick against See also: Amsterdam, 1768), although Monmouth was beheaded in 1685 . He was See also:Francois de See also:Vendome, duke of See also:Beaufort, who disappeared (and See also:pretty certainly died) at the See also:siege of See also:Candia (1669); Avedick, an Armenian See also:patriarch seized by the See also:Jesuits, who was not imprisoned till 1706 and died in 1711; Fouquet, who undoubtedly died at Pignerol in 1680; and even, according to A . Loquin (1883), See also:Moliere ! See also:Modern See also:criticism, however, has narrowed the issue . The " See also:plan iu the mask " was either (1) Count Mattiuli, who becamethe prisoner of Saint-Mars at Pignerol in 1679, or (2) the person called Eustache Dauger, who was imprisoned in See also:July 1669 in the same fortress . The evidence shows conclusively that these two were the only prisoners under Saint-Mars at Pignerol who could have been taken by him to the Bastille in 1698 . The arguments in favour of Mattioli (first suggested by Heiss, and strongly supported by Topin in 1870) are summed up, with much See also:weight of See also:critical authority, by F . Funck-See also:Brentano in vol. lvi. of the Revue historique (1894); the claims of Eustache Dauger were no less ably advocated by J . Lair in vol. ii. of his See also:Nicolas See also:Foucquet (1890) . But while we know who Mattioli was, and why he was imprisoned, a further question still remains for supporters of Dauger, because his identity and the See also:reason for his incarceration are quite obscure . It need only be added, so far as other modern theories are concerned, that in 1873 M . See also:Jung (La Verite sur la masque defer) had brought forward another See also:candidate, with the attractive name of "Marechiel," a soldier of See also:Lorraine who had taken part in a poisoning plot against Louis XIV., and was arrested at Peronne by See also:Louvois in 1673, and said to be lodged in the Bastille and then sent to Pignerol .
But Jung's arguments, though strong destructively against the Mattioli theory, break down as regards any valid See also:proof either that the prisoner arrested at Perontle was a Bastille prisoner in 167.3 or that he was ever at Pignerol, where indeed we find no trace of him
.
Another theory, propounded by See also:Captain Bazeries (La Masque de See also:fir, 1883), identified the prisoner with See also:General du Bulonde, punished for cowardice at the siege of See also:Cuneo; but Bulonde only went to Pignerol in 1691, and has been proved to be living in 1705
.
The Mattioli Theory.—Ercole See also:Antonio Mattioli (born at See also:Bologna on the 1st of See also:December 1640) was See also:minister of See also: In that case he was clearly not " the mask " of 1698 and 1703 . Funck-Brentano's See also:attempt to prove that Mattioli did not See also:die in 1694 is far from convincing; but the See also:assumption that he did is inferential, and to, that extent arguable . " Marchioly" in the See also:burial register of Saint Paul naturally suggests indeed at first that the " ancien prisonnier " taken by Saint-Mars to the Bastille in 1698 was Mattioli, Saint-Mars himself sometimes ' Barbezieux to Saint-Mars, May to, 1694: " J'ai recu la lettre qua See also:vous avez psis la See also:peine de m'ecrire 1 29 du See also:moss passe ; vous pouvez, suivant clue vous le proposez, faird mettre clans la prison voftt@e le valet du prisonnier qui est mort." It may be noted that Barbezieux had recently told Saint-Mars to designate his prisoners by circumlocutions in his See also:correspondence, and not by name . writing the name " Marthioly " in his letters; but further See also:consideration leaves this See also:argument decidedly weak . In any case the age stated in the burial register, " about 45," was fictitious, whether for Mattioli (63) or Dauger (at least 53); and, as Lair points out, Saint-Mars is known to have given false names at the burial of other prisoners . See also:Monsignor See also:Barnes, in The Man of the Mask (1908), takes the entry " Marchioly " as making it certain that the prisoner was not Mattioli, on the ground (1) that the See also:law' explicitly ordered a false name to be given, and (2) that after hiding his identity so carefully the authorities were not likely to give away the secret by means of a burial register . In spite of Funck-Brentano it appears practically certain that Mattioli must be ruled out . If he was the individual who died in 1703 at the Bastille, the obscurity which gathered See also:round the nameless masked prisoner is almost incomprehensible, for there was no real secret about Mattioli's incarceration . The existence of a " legend " as to Danger can, however, be traced, as will be seen below, from the first . Any one who accepts the Mattioli theory must be driven, as See also:Lang suggests, to suppose that the mystery which See also:grew up about the unknown prisoner was somehow transferred to Mattioli from Dauger . The Dauger Theory.—What then was Danger's See also:history ? Unfortunately it is only in his capacity as a prisoner that we can trace it . On the i9th of July 166g Louvois, Louis XIV.'s minister, writes to Saint-Mars at Pignerol that he is sending him " le nomme Eustache Dauger " (Dauger, D'See also:Angers—the spelling is doubtful),' whom it is of the last importance to keep with See also:special closeness; Saint-Mars is to threaten him with death if he speaks about anything except his actual needs . On the same See also:day Louvois orders Vauroy, See also:major of the citadel of See also:Dunkirk, to seize Dauger and conduct him to Pignerol . Saint-Mars writes to Louvois (Aug . 21) that Vauroy had brought Dauger, and that See also:people " believe him to be a See also:marshal of France." Louvois (March 26, 1670) refers to a See also:report that one of Fouquet's valets—there was See also:constant trouble about them—had spoken to Dauger, who asked to be left in See also:peace, and he emphasizes the importance of there being no communication . Saint-Mars (See also:April 12, 167o) reports Dauger as "resigne a la volonte de Dieu et du See also:Roy," and (again the legend grows) says that " there are persons who are inquisitive about my prisoner, and I am obliged to tell conies jaunes pour me moquer d'eux." In 1672 Saint-Mars proposes—the significance of this See also:action is discussed later—to allow Dauger to See also:act as " valet " to Lauzun; Louvois firmly refuses, but in 1675 allows him to be employed as valet to Fouquet, and he impresses upon Saint-Mars the importance of nobody learning about Danger's " past." After Fouquet's death (168o) Dauger and Fouquet's other (old-See also:standing) valet La See also:Riviere are put together, by Louvois's special orders, in one See also:lower See also:dungeon; Louvois evidently fears their knowledge of things heard from Fouquet, and he orders Lauzun (who had recently been allowed to converse freely with Fouquet) to be told that they are released . When Saint-Mars is transferred to Exiles, he is ordered to take these two with him, as too important to be in other hands; Mattioli is left behind . At Exiles they are separated and guarded with special precautions; and in See also:January 1687 one of them (all the evidence admittedly pointing to La Riviere) See also:dies . When Saint-Mars is again transferred, in May 1687, to Ste Marguerite, he takes his " prisoner " (apparently he now has only one--Dauger) with See also:great show of caution; and next See also:year (See also:Jan . 8, 1688) he writes to Louvois that " mon prisonnier " is believed " in all this See also:province " to be a son of See also:Oliver See also:Cromwell, or else the duke of Beaufort (a point which at once rules out Beaufort) . In 16gr Louvois's successor, Barbezieux, writes to him about his " prisonnier de vingt ans " (Dauger was first imprisoned in 1669, Mattioli in 1679), and Saint-Mars replies that " nobody has seen him but myself." Subsequently Barbezieux and the governor continue to write to one another about their " ancien prisonnier " ' He cites See also:Bingham's Bastille, i . 27 . e It was the See also:common practice to give pseudonyms to prisoners, and this is clearly such a case .
Mattioli's prison name was Lestang.(Jan
.
6, 1696; Nov
.
17, 1697)
.
When, therefore, we come to Saint-Mars's See also:appointment to the Bastille in 1698, Dauger appears almost certainly to be the "ancien prisonnier " he took with him.' There is at least See also:good ground for supposing Mattioli's death to have been indicated in 1694, but nothing is known that would imply Danger's, unless it was he who died in 1703
.
Theories as to Dauger's Identity.—Here we find not only sufficient indication of the growth of a legend as to Danger, but also the existence in fact of a real mystery as to who he was and what he had done, two things both absent in Mattioli's case
.
The only " missing See also:link " is the want of any precise allusion to a mask in the references to Danger
.
But in spite of du Junca's emphasis on the mask, it is in reality very question-able whether the wearing of a mask was an unusual practice
.
It was one obvious way of enabling a prisoner to appear in public (for exercise or in travelling) without betrayal of identity
.
Indeed three years before the arrival of Saint-Mars we hear (See also:Gazette d'Amsterdam, March 14, 1695) of another masked man being brought to the Bastille, who eventually was known to be the son of a See also:Lyons banker
.
Who then was Dauger, and what was his " past "
?
We will take first a theory propounded by See also:Andrew Lang in The Valet's Tragedy (1903)
.
As the result of See also:research in the See also:diplomatic correspondence at the Record See also:Office in London' Mr Lang finds a clue in the affairs of the French Huguenot, Roux de Marsilly, the secret See also:agent for a See also:Protestant See also:league against France between See also:Sweden, See also: 
On the 14th of April 1669 Marsilly was. kidnapped for Louis XIV. in Switzerland, in See also:defiance of inter-See also:national right, taken to; See also:Paris and on the 22nd of See also:June tortured to death on a trumped-up charge of See also:rape . The duke of See also:York. is said to have betrayed him to See also:Colbert, the French See also:ambassador in London . The English intrigue was undoubtedly, a serious See also:matter, because the shifty Charles II. was at the same time. negotiating with Louis XIV. a secret See also:alliance against Holland,, in support of the restoration of See also:Roman Catholicism in England .. It would therefore be desirable for both parties to remove. anybody who was cognizant of the See also:double dealing . Now Louvois's See also:original See also:letter to Saint-Mars concerning Danger . (July 19, 1669), after dealing with the importance of his being guarded with special closeness, and of Saint-Mars personally taking him See also:food and threatening him with death if he speaks, proceeds as follows (in a second See also:paragraph, as printed in Delort, 1.155, 156) " Je mande au Sieur Poupart de faire incessamment travailler a ce que vous desirerez, et vous ferez preparer See also:les meubles qui sont nExessaires pour la See also:vie de celui que I'on vous amenera, observant que coinme ce n est qu'un valet, it ne lui en faut pas de Bien considerables, et je vous ferai rembourser tant de la despenses See also:des meubles, que de cc que vous desirerez pour sa nourriture." Assuming the words here, " as he is only a valet," to refer to Dauger, and taking into account the employment of Dauger from 1675 to 168o as Fouquet's valet, Mr Lang now obtains a. See also:solution of the problem of why a See also:mere valet should be a political' Funds-Brentano argues that " un ancien prisonnier qu'il avait a Pignerol " (du Junca's words) cannot apply to Dauger, because then du Junca would have added " et a Exiles." But this is decidedly far-fetched; du Junca would naturally refer specially to Pignerol, the fortress with which Saint-Mars had been originally and particularly associated . Funck-Brentano also insists that the references to the " ancien prisonnier " in 1696 and 1697 must be to Mattioli, giving ancien the meaning of " See also:late " or "former " (as in the phrase " ancien ministre "), and regarding it as an expression pertinent to Mattioli, who had been at Pignerol with Saint-Mars but not at Exiles, and not to Dauger, who had always been with Saint-Mars . But when he attempts to force du Junca's phrase " un ancien prisonnier qu'il avait a Pignerol " into this sense, he is straining See also:language . The natural See also:interpretation of the word ancien is simply of old standing," and Barbezieux's use of it, coming after Louvois's phrase in 1691, clearly points to Dauger being meant . ' This See also:identification had been previously suggested by H . Montaudon in Revue de la societe des etudes historiques for 1888, p . 452, and by A. le See also:Grain in L'Intcrnediaire des chcrcheurs for 1891, See also:col . 227-228 . prisoner of so much concern to Louis XIV. at this time . He points out that Colbert, on the 3rd, loth and 24th of June, writes from London to Louis XIV. about his efforts to get Martin, Roux de Marsilly's valet, to go to France, and on the 1st of July expresses a hope that Charles II. will surrender " the valet." Then, on the 19th of July, Danger is arrested at Dunkirk, the See also:regular See also:port from England . Mr Lang regards his conclusion as to the identity between these valets as irresistible . It is true that what is certainly known about Martin hardly seems to provide sufficient reason for Eustache Danger being regarded for so long a time as a specially dangerous person . But Mr Lang's See also:answer on that point is that this humble supernumerary in Roux de Marsilly's See also:conspiracy simply became one more wretched victim of the "red tape" of the old French See also:absolute See also:monarchy . Unfortunately for this identification, it encounters at once a formidable, if not fatal, objection . Martin, the Huguenot conspirator Marsilly's valet, must surely have been himself a Huguenot . Dauger, on the other See also:hand, was certainly a See also:Catholic; indeed Louvois's second letter to Saint-Mars about him (See also:Sept . 1o, 1669) gives precise directions as to his being allowed to attend See also:mass at the same time as Fouquet . It may perhaps be argued that Danger (if Martin) simply did not make See also:bad worse by See also:pro-claiming his creed; but against this, Louvois must have known that Martin was a Huguenot . Apart from that, it will be observed that the substantial reason for connecting the two men is simply that both were " valets." The identification is inspired by the apparent See also:necessity of an explanation why Danger, being a valet, should be a political prisoner of importance . The assumption, however, that Dauger was a valet when he was arrested is itself as unnecessary as the fact is intrinsically improbable . Neither Louvois's letter of July 19, 1669, nor Dauger's employment as valet to Fouquet in 1675 (six years later)—and these are the only grounds on which the assumption rests—prove anything of the sort . Was Dauger a valet ? If Danger was the " mask," it is just as well to remove a misunderstanding which has misled too many commentators . 1 . If Louvois's letter of July 19 be read in connexion with the preceding correspondence it will be seen that ever since Fouquet's incarceration in 1665 Saint-Mars had had trouble over his valets . They fall See also:ill, and there is difficulty in replacing them, or they See also:play the traitor . At last, on the 12th of March 1669, Louvois writes to Saint-Mars to say (evidently in answer to some See also:suggestion from Saint-Mars in a letter which is not preserved): " It is annoying that both Fouquet's valets should have fallen ill at the same time, but you have so far taken such good See also:measures for avoiding inconvenience that I leave it to you to adopt whatever course is necessary." There are then no letters in existence from Saint-Mars to Louvois up to Louvois's letter of July 19, in which he first refers to Danger; and for three months (from April 22 to July 19) there is a See also:gap in the correspondence, so that the sequence is obscure . The portion, however, of the letter of the 19th of July, cited above, in which Louvois uses the words " ce n'est qu'un valet," does not, in the present writer's See also:judgment, refer to Danger at all, but to something which had been mooted in the meanwhile with a view to obtaining a valet for Fouquet . This is indeed the natural See also:reading of the letter as a whole . If Louvois had meant to write that Danger was " only a valet " he would have started by saying so . On the contrary, he gives precise and apparently comprehensive directions in the first part of the letter about how he is to be treated: "Je vous en See also:donne advis See also:par advance, afin que vous puissiez faire accomoder un cachot ou vous le mettrez surement, observant de faire en sorte que les jours qu'See also:aura le lieu oil it sera ne donnent point sur les lieux qui puissent estre abordez de personne, et qu'il y ayt assez de portes fermees, les unes sur les autres, pour que vos sentinelles ne puissent bien entendre," &c . Having finished his instructions about Danger, he then proceeds in a fresh paragraph to tell Saint-Mars that orders have been given to " Sieur Poupart " to do " whatever you shall See also:desire." He is here dealing with a different question; and it is unreasonable to suppose,and indeed contrary to the See also:style in which Louvois corresponds with Saint-Mars, that he devotes the whole letter to the one subject with which he started . The words " et vous ferez preparer les meubles qui sont necessaires pour la vie de celui que 1'on vous amenera " are not at all those which Louvois would use with regard to Dauger, after what he has just said about him . Why " celui que l'on vous amenera," instead of simply " Danger," who was being brought, as he has said, by Vauroy ? The clue to the interpretation of this phrase may be found in another letter from Louvois not six months later (Jan . 1, 167o), when he writes: " Le roy se remet a vous d'en uzer comme vous le jugerez a propos a l'esgard des valets de See also:Monsieur Foucquet; it faut seulement observer que si vous luy donnez des valets que 1' on vous amenera d'icy, it pourra bien arriver qu'ils seront gaignez par avance, et qu'ainsy ils feroient pis que ceux que vous en osteriez presentement." Here we have the identical phrase used of valets whom it is contemplated to bring in from outside for Fouquet; though it does not follow that any such valet was in fact brought in . The whole previous correspondence (as well as a good See also:deal afterwards) is full of the valet difficulty; and it is surely more reasonable to suppose that when Louvois writes to Saint-Mars on the 19th of July that he is sending Danger, a new prisoner of importance, as to whom " it est de la derniere importance qu'il soit garde avec une grande seurete," his second paragraph as regards the instructions to " Sieur Poupart " refers to some-thing which Saint-Mars had suggested about getting a valet from outside, and simply points out that in preparing See also:furniture for " celui que l'on vous amenera " he need not do much, " comme ce n'est qu'un valet." 2 . But this is not all . If Danger had been originally a valet, he might as well have been used as such at once, when one was particularly wanted . On the contrary, Louvois flatly refused Saint-Mars's See also:request in 1672 to be allowed to do so, and was exceedingly chary of allowing it in 1675 (only " en cas de necessite," and " vous pouvez donner le dit prisonnier a M . Foucquet, si son valet venoit a luy manquer et non autrement" ) . The words used by Saint-Mars in asking Louvois in 1672 if he might use Danger as Lauzun's valet are themselves significant to the point of conclusiveness: "Il ferait, ce me semble, un bon valet." Saint-Mars could not have said this if Danger had all along been known to be a valet . The terms of his letter to Louvois (Feb 2o, 1672) show that Saint-Mars wanted to use Danger as a valet simply because he was not a valet .
That a person might be used as a valet who was not really a valet is shown by Louvois having told Saint-Mars in 1666 (June 4) that Fouquet's old See also:doctor, Pecquet, was not to be allowed to serve him " snit dans sa profession, soit clans le mestier d'un See also:simple valet." The fact was that Saint-Mars was hard put to it in the prison for anybody who could be trusted, and that he had convinced himself by this time that Danger (who had proved a quiet harmless See also:fellow) would give no trouble
.
Probably he wanted to give him some easy employment, and See also:save him from going mad in confinement
.
It is See also:worth noting that up to 1672 (when Saint-Mars suggested utilizing Danger as valet to Lauzun) none of the references to Danger in letters after that of July 19, 1669, suggests his being a valet; and their contrary See also:character makes it all the more clear that the second part of the letter of July 19 does not refer to Danger
.
In this connexion it may be remarked (and this is a point on which Funck-Brentano entirely misinterprets the allusion) that, even in his capacity as valet to Fouquet, Danger was still regarded an as exceptional sort of prisoner; for in 1679 when Fouquet and Lauzun were afterwards allowed to, walk freely all over the citadel, Louvois impresses on Saint-Mars that "le nomme Eustache " is never to be allowed to 'be in Fouquet's See also:room when Lauzun or any other stranger, or anybody but Fouquet and the "ancien valet," La Riviere, is there, and that he is to stay in Fouquet's room when the latter goes out to walk in the citadel, and is only to go out walking with Fouquet and La Riviere when they See also:promenade in the special part of the fortress previously set apart for them (Louvois's letter to Saint-Mars, Jan
.
30, 1679)
.
Was Dauger See also: |