Iron Mask Wiki. Iron mask: who was it really?
In the late autumn of 1703 in Paris, the body of a mysterious prisoner was buried in a cemetery. The name of the deceased was hidden under the pseudonym Iron Mask. Since the second half of the eighteenth century, scientists and researchers have been arguing about who the masked prisoner was, whose last refuge was the Bastille. The legend became the basis for gossip and the search for candidates for the role of the prisoner. The information is still kept secret, and the work “The Iron Mask” fuels readers’ interest in the events of that era.
Origin story
The real name of the Bastille prisoner, who became the reason for speculation and legends, is unknown. His second pseudonym turned out to be prison number: 64489001. Researchers suggest that the young man’s date of birth is close to the forties of the seventeenth century, and throughout his life the man managed to visit several prisons. It is curious that the iron mask worn by the prisoner turned out to be a fiction. In reality, the prisoner wore a velvet mask, which helped to remain unrecognized and did not cause inconvenience. His identity was unknown even to the guards.
For the first time they started talking about the prisoner of the Bastille during the reign. The widow of the king's brother, Charlotte Elizabeth of Bavaria, in letters to a relative sent in 1711, shared the gossip that was circulating at court. The woman wrote that they were talking at court about a mysterious prisoner, whose identity remains unknown, since his face is constantly covered with an iron mask. Charlotte insisted that Mr. X, hiding under the metal, was an English lord who participated in a conspiracy against King William of Orange III of England.
Then information about the unknown person in custody was announced in the “Secret Notes on the History of Persia,” published in 1745. In imitation of Montesquieu, the anonymous author created a research work in an artistic style. An unknown writer described the story of Giaffer, the illegitimate son of Louis XIV, who was imprisoned for slapping his half-brother, the Dauphin. The illegitimate son of the king and Louise de La Vallière was allegedly placed under prison supervision at the age of 16.
Engraving "Iron Mask" In 1751 he published a book entitled “The Age of Louis XIV.” Having been imprisoned in the Bastille twice, the writer knew first-hand what was happening in prison. Voltaire saw those who served the Iron Mask. Despite the fact that he did not have the real facts, the writer assumed that the brother of the French king was hiding under the veil of secrecy. Voltaire believed that the son and her favorite was hiding from the public eye in the Bastille.
Legends and versions
Ideas about the origin of the mysterious person were put forward by Chancel de Langrange, Cenac de Melyan, Griffet, Abbot Papon, Lenguet, Charpentier and Soulavi. Some claimed that the Bourbon secret, which consisted in the queen’s dishonesty, was to blame. While preserving the name of the prisoner, by order of the royal family, the sheet with his data was excluded from the Bastille register. It is reliably known that the information was on sheet 120 and was certified in 1698, at the time of the prisoner’s arrival.
Gossips of the eighteenth century said that there had been a palace coup, as a result of which the king's twin brother was sitting on the throne, and the true ruler was under lock and key. This assumption left a mark on the reputation of the Bourbons and the authenticity of the pedigree. At the beginning of the 19th century, this theory was propagated by supporters who claimed that Napoleon was a descendant of the true king.
Ercole Mattioli was named among the contenders for the role of the Iron Mask. The Italian adventurer was famous for the agreement concluded with the king in 1678. Mattioli sold state secrets, for which he was transported to the Bastille.
This is not the only version about a prisoner not of blue blood. General Bulond could also be hiding behind a mask. Information from the secret diaries of Louis XIV suggests that the general was imprisoned after an offense committed during the Nine Years' War.
It is known from reliable sources that the Iron Mask was kept in the company of eight other criminals in the fortress of Pignerol. The story of the fellow sufferers is not impressive. Some were transferred to other prisons and died, some were released. The debate about who the mysterious man hiding behind the iron mask could be continues to this day.
Film adaptations
In the legend of the Iron Mask, there are discrepancies and inconsistencies that give rise to interesting plots that directors use in film adaptations. The legend of the mysterious prisoner of the Bastille became the basis for several full-length films. They starred recognized actors, thanks to whom you want to watch the films again and again.
The story of the mysterious prisoner was first presented on the big screen in 1962. The film was directed by Henri Decoin. Main actor became incarnate, sent to rescue the prisoner. The Musketeer does not make it in time and finds the cell empty, since the daughter of the head of the Bastille, who is in love with him, helped the Iron Mask escape.
Still from the film "Iron Mask" In 1976, the public was offered a new interpretation, in which the main character was portrayed. The plot described the twin brother of the king, who fell in love with the daughter of a cellmate. Louis transferred the prisoner to the island of Saint-Margaret, having learned about his feelings, and shackled his face in a mask. At this time, D'Artagnan helped the head of government replace his brothers in order to carry out a palace coup.
In 1998, he played the roles of Louis XIV and his twin Philip, shackled in an iron mask, in the film of the same name. The film was remembered for its scale and big names of artists, because it starred, and. Today the film is considered the largest film adaptation of the story of the prisoner of the Bastille.
The date of birth of the mysterious character in the iron mask is unknown. But the date of death is recorded accurately: he died on November 19, 1703. In general, the story of the Iron Mask begins in July 1669, when the minister of Louis XIV sends a letter to the head of the prison in the city of Pinerolo with a request to receive and provide special attention to a mysterious prisoner in a mask.
Since then, evidence of the Man in the Iron Mask has surfaced either in personal letters or in philosophical treatises. Even Voltaire did not ignore the existence of the Iron Mask and hinted that he knew much more about it than many, but, like a true Frenchman, he would remain silent. From these words of the philosopher it somehow naturally followed that the imprisonment of the enigmatic prisoner was connected with state secrets.
And really, why bother with an ordinary person like that? It’s easier to kill, especially since it’s the 17th century. But the prisoner was not only not killed: in all the places where he stayed, including the Bastille, he was given the most comfortable living conditions. The main inconvenience of his life was (besides, of course, the fact of confinement) wearing a mask around the clock. Although here the story has slightly thickened the colors: the mask was not iron, but made of black velvet. Agree, the material is qualitatively different.
The legend of the Man in the Iron Velvet Mask has not subsided over the centuries, but has acquired new details. The main question - who the prisoner was - is still relevant today. There are at least 52 versions in total. But we won’t torment you with everyone; we’ll introduce you only to the most interesting ones, in our opinion.
Mysterious lady
It is not for nothing that the expression “Cherche la femme” was invented by the French. They always imagine a woman behind any secret. The version arose after the prisoner (prisoner) visited the prison on the island of Sainte-Marguerite and probably made a romantic impression on the prison governor.
A theory that appeared at the end of the 19th century. They say that Moliere (pardon the pun) was so tired of the authorities with his accusatory plays that it was most convenient to put his talent into a mask. Although the writer and the king had, strictly speaking, cultural relations: Moliere even held the honorable position of the king’s bed-guard.
Skin cancer patient
1933 version. A terrible illness struck the skin of a certain high-ranking official, and therefore this face had to be covered with a mask.
Twin brother of Louis XIV
Until the death of the de facto regent Mazarin, the young Sun King was completely uninterested in politics. He just danced, changed outfits and, so to speak, flirted with the ladies. But the day after the death of the cardinal, the king’s behavior changed dramatically (and again, sorry for the pun): he became serious and became concerned about governing the state. Just a different person! What if this is our king’s twin brother, hidden immediately after birth? Well, exactly. This is true. And the king, apparently, is now sitting in captivity and wearing a mask. The version gained popularity thanks to Dumas and the 1998 film “The Man in the Iron Mask” with Leonardo DiCaprio (yes, he was not given an Oscar for this film either).
Black son of Maria Theresa
A child born from an inappropriate relationship between the queen and her black page. The “well, it doesn’t happen to anyone” excuse royal families did not work, and the criminal fruit of love had to be imprisoned forever.
On November 20, 1703, in the cemetery at the Church of St. Paul in Paris, a secret burial took place of an unknown prisoner, who was listed in the register of Bastille prisoners as the “Iron Mask.” WITH mid-18th century V. and to this day, scientists and cultural figures from France, Italy, Great Britain and Germany, trying to uncover the secret of the “Mask,” have nominated more than fifty “candidates” for the role of the mysterious prisoner. However, despite rational hypotheses and witty conjectures, a veil of secrecy stubbornly hid this three-century-old mystery of history.
THE MOST MYSTERIOUS PRISONER IN HISTORY
The first rumors about a masked Bastille prisoner appeared at the court of Louis XIV at the beginning of the second decade of the 18th century. Their source turned out to be the widow of the Duke of Orleans, brother of Louis XIV, Charlotte Elizabeth of Bavaria, who was very knowledgeable in palace intrigues. In 1711, in letters to her aunt Sophia, Duchess of Hanover, she spoke about the rumors that had spread among the court about an extraordinary prisoner of the main royal prison. According to her, an unknown masked prisoner, allegedly an English lord involved in a conspiracy against English king William III of Orange.
The book by an unnamed author, “Secret Notes on the History of Persia,” published in 1745 in Amsterdam, generated significantly more publicity. The author, imitating the “Persian Letters” of C. Montesquieu, spoke about the ill-fated fate of Giafer, the illegitimate son of “Shah-Abas” - Louis XIV, who slapped his half-brother, “Sefi-Mirza” - the “Great Dauphin”, and was sentenced for this to eternal imprisonment. It was clear that this prisoner was the Count of Vermandois, Grand Admiral of France, the 16-year-old son of Louis XIV and his mistress Louise de La Vallière.
In 1751, Voltaire, while in exile, published the book “The Age of Louis XIV.” In it, the author, who himself became a Bastille prisoner in 1717 and then in 1726, told the world legendary history about her mysterious prisoner, who is obliged, on pain of death, to wear an iron mask on his face. They believed him, because Voltaire talked with people who served the “Mask.” He, 20 years later, offered a sensational solution to the mystery: under the “Iron Mask” was hidden the elder brother of Louis XIV, the son of Anne of Austria and one of her favorites. Voltaire’s version became widely known and gave rise to an impressive a stream of literature about the mysterious prisoner, the “sun king” and his time, which has not dried up to this day.
The incredible but exciting story was immediately picked up by publicists, writers, and scientists. In addition to Voltaire, who published his work in 1751, 1752, 1753, before the Great French Revolution, the mystery of the prisoner of the Bastille was explored in the works of J. Chancel de Lagrange (1754), Senac de Meillan (1755), A. Griffet (1769), Abbot Papon (1780), S. Lenge (1783); during the years of the revolution - the publicist Charpentier (1790) and J.-L. Sulavi (1790). Among the numerous hypotheses and guesses of the 18th century. versions questioning the honor of the Queen Mother were very popular. All of them included a family resemblance to the Bourbons, which explained the need to wear a mask. Voltaire's assumption dealt a severe blow to the prestige of the royal dynasty. It is not without reason that back in 1775, by order of the Minister of the City of Paris, Amelo, the 120th sheet, corresponding to 1698, the year the mysterious prisoner entered prison, was removed from the register of Bastille prisoners, and replaced by a sheet written in its place. It contained falsified information about his age and name.
At the end of the 18th century. a version appeared about the twin brothers of the Queen of France, as well as the most poisonous speculation: the true son of Louis XIII was allegedly imprisoned in the Bastille, and the son of Anne of Austria and Cardinal Mazarin was enthroned. Thus, the legitimacy of all the Bourbons, starting with Louis XIV, was called into question. In 1801, this ahistorical legend was used by supporters of Bonaparte. Leaflets appeared saying that Bonaparte was a descendant of the Iron Mask.
After the storming of the Bastille in 1789 and the release of its archives, it was established that the "Man in the Iron Mask" was taken to prison by its new governor, Saint-Mars, from Fr. Sainte-Marguerite. Previously, this prisoner was held among eight “state criminals” in the Pignerol fortress on the border with Piedmont. In it, the commandant of the castle from 1665 to 1681 was Saint-Mars, who had previously served under the command of the musketeer lieutenant Charles de Bas Castelmore (d'Artagnan). It became clear that the search for “Mask” should be carried out among the members of the G8 who had become different time by order of the “Sun King” by prisoners of the castle.
But who should we stop at? The research was complicated by the fact that most of the prisoners were referred to in correspondence not by names, but by nicknames or conventional definitions like: “a prisoner delivered to such and such.” In addition, it was known that one of them, Count Lauzen, was released in 1681; two - in the same year were transferred to Fort Exil, where one of them died at the end of 1686 or at the beginning of 1687, and the second was soon sent to the island. Sainte-Marguerite. Of the remaining five, two found death in Pignerol, and the remainder were also transported to Sainte-Marguerite in 1694, where one of the prisoners died and the “Mask” was taken to the Bastille.
Thanks to the 50-year work of the librarian of the Paris Arsenal F. Ravaisson, who began to be called “the last prisoner of the Bastille,” its archive by the end of the 11th century. became available not only to professional scientists, but also to everyone interested in the history of its prisoners.” In the XI-X century. archival materials and documents were studied by Roux Faziillac (1801), M. Paroletti (1812), J. Delors (1825, 1829), P. Lacroix (1836, 1837), A. Cheruel (1862), M. Taupin (1869), T. Jung (1873), J. Lehr (1890), F. Ravaisson (1866-1891), D. Carutti (1893), F. Bournon (1893), F. Funk-Brentano (1898, 1903) and many others representatives of science and culture. The most significant contribution to the study of the problem of the “Iron Mask” was made by French researchers: J. Delors, P. Lacroix, M. Taupin, T. Jung, J. Lehr and F. Funk-Brentano.
In the 20th century interest in the mysterious prisoner, imprisoned for over 30 years in the darkest prisons of France, has not diminished at all. Studies appeared: the Englishmen A. Lang and A. S. Barnes, the French E. Lalois, M. Duvivier, J. Mongredien, as well as the playwright, member of the French Academy M. Pagnol, author of the book “The Iron Mask” (1965). At the turn of the 60-70s, books were published - P.-J. Arreza "The Iron Mask" Finally a solved riddle” and J.-C. Ptifis “The Iron Mask - the most mysterious prisoner in history” In 1978, a new sensational version appeared. French lawyer P.-M. Dijols, in his book “Nabeau, or the Iron Mask,” argued that the prisoner of the Bastille was a servant of Queen Maria Theresa, the wife of Louis XIV, the Moor Nabo. In domestic literature, foreign researchers devoted essays to various versions of the solution to the riddle of the “Iron Mask” in the book “Five Centuries of the Secret War” by historian E. B. Chernyak, which went through five editions.
Writers N.M. Karamzin, A.S. Pushkin, A. de Vigny, V. Hugo, A. Dumas the father addressed the story of the nameless prisoner. In the 10th century, in addition to Pagnol, the story of the “Iron Mask” intrigued the writers P. Moreau, A. Deco, J. Bordonev. Scientists and writers, based on the same facts and documents, defend different, in many cases mutually exclusive, hypotheses and versions. And this is convincing proof that the mystery of “the most mysterious prisoner in history” is still not solved.
MAIN CONTENDANTS: QUESTIONS AND DOUBTS
Analysis of historical documents allowed researchers to focus on three prisoners of the Pinerol G8, the most reliable contenders for the role of the Iron Mask. This is Nicolas Fouquet, former superintendent of finances of Louis XIV, the mysterious “servant” Eustache Doget and Count Hercule Mattioli, secretary of state to the Duke of Mantua - Charles IV.
Famous statesman of France in the 50s of the 17th century. N. Fouquet became fabulously rich through trade in the French North American colonies, as well as through financial fraud in his own country, neglecting reporting to the king. His palace at Vaux-le-Vicomte, decorated with the owner's motto: “Where shall he not ascend?”, surpassed the royal residences in luxury. Carrying out a complex political game, Fouquet strengthened Fr. Belle-Ile began to acquire its own ships. In case of arrest, he, being a frontier at heart, drew up a plan of resistance back in 1658 for his supporters, who called him “the man of the future”; tried to bribe Louis XIV's favorite L.-F. Lavalier. J.-B. Colbert, the author of the project to improve the country's financial and credit system, exposed Fouquet, and he, by order of the king, was arrested on September 5 by d'Artagnan. Fouquet was charged with financial fraud, insulting the head of state and inciting rebellion; by a special judicial chamber he was sentenced to lifelong exile with confiscation of property. The king replaced this sentence with indefinite imprisonment, and in January 1665 Fouquet, escorted by d’Artagnan, crossed the threshold of the castle of the Pignerol fortress. Here he was given the service of the spy servant La Riviera. At the end of 1669, the nobleman Valcroissant and Fouquet's former servant Laforet entered the fortress to free Fouquet. The attempt failed. Laforet was executed, and Valcroissant was sentenced to five years in the galleys.
On August 24, 1669, a “simple servant” Eustache Doget was brought to the castle, causing “the king’s displeasure” and being arrested on his orders. Minister of War F.-M.-L. Louvois ordered that the prisoner be kept in complete secrecy in a special punishment cell with double doors, with one meal only. On pain of death, he was forbidden to talk even with the commandant about anything other than daily needs, and to convey any news about himself. Most researchers considered his name as a pseudonym, since the draft orders for his arrest and delivery to Pignerol were nameless.
On December 19, 1671, Count A.-N was brought to Pignerol under the escort of d’Artagnan. Lozen, captain of the royal guard, colonel general of dragoons. He paid for the fact that he rudely insulted the king's favorite Madame Montespan, and later had the audacity to claim the hand of cousin King Duchess de Montpatsier. In the first half of the 70s, Lozen and his servant made a passage into the Fouquet chamber located above them. They began to meet and talk to each other. The passage was discovered only in March 1680.
On May 2, 1679, the minister of the Duke of Mantua, Count Mattioli, was brought to Pignerol in the strictest secrecy with a black velvet mask on his face. Contrary to diplomatic immunity, he was arrested by order of Louis XIV for revealing to the rulers of Austria, Spain, Piedmont and the Venetian Republic the secret of a deal between the king and the duke on the sale of the border town of Casale to France. However, already in 1682, all of Europe knew about Mattioli’s arrest and imprisonment.
The candidacies of Fouquet, Dauger and Mattioli for the role of the “Iron Mask” are still being discussed. But it was not possible to reach a consensus. And this is not surprising. After all, Fouquet, according to the prison administration and the report of the Gazette de France dated April 6, 1680, died on March 23 from an apoplexy. Mattioli, according to very reliable data, died on Sainte-Marguerite in April 1694. Doge remains... According to Mongredien and Petifis, he paid with two decades of secret solitary confinement for knowing the secrets of Fouquet, whom he served in Pignerol. But then the question immediately arises: why hide Doge's face under a mask? After all, it is known that until March 23, 1680, he did not wear it.
The riddle of the “Iron Mask” requires an answer to other questions that arise in connection with the fate of these prisoners. Here are just a few of them... Why in 1672 was Saint-Mars’s idea to give Lauzin Dauger into the service rejected, and in 1675 Louvois himself proposed using him as Fouquet’s second servant? For what purpose, in November 1678, the king and Louvois, bypassing Saint-Mars, began to ask Fouquet what Doge was doing before he was sent to Pignerol? Under what circumstances and from what did Fouquet die, after his meeting with his relatives took place at the end of 1679, and rumors about his imminent release spread throughout Paris? How could some papers appear in the pockets of Fouquet’s clothes on the 54th and 91st days after his death, which, according to Louvois, were sent each time to the king? How to explain why the day of his death and the day of his funeral in Paris are separated by a period of one year and five days, although the permission to release the body of the deceased to the relatives was signed by the king on the 17th day after the death of the ex-minister? Why was Voltaire, after talking with members of the Fouquet family, able to say: “So, it remains unknown where this unfortunate man died, whose slightest actions were widely publicized when he was powerful.” How could Louvois oblige the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Charles Colbert, Marquis de Croissy, to assign to his department, starting in 1681, all the costs of maintaining the “two blackbirds” of Saint-Mars in Fort Exile, including the costs of its governor, subordinate officers, a doctor, a priest and a company of soldiers? After all, all state prisons in France were financed by the Louvois ministry! Why, since the mid-80s, have the conditions of one of the prisoners of Saint-Mars, who invariably attracted the attention of the king and his ministers, constantly improved? Finally, how can we explain that at the end of 1699, Saint-Mars equipped a soundproof cell in the Bastille for a masked prisoner, and already in March 1701, “The Mask” ended up in a cell with other prisoners? A number of other questions arise to which there is no answer. So what? Will the mystery of the “Iron Mask” remain forever unsolved, as the great French historian Jules Michelet predicted back in the 19th century? After all, over the past 20 years, only one document has been noticed that has not attracted the attention of researchers, and almost all existing versions have been repeatedly refuted.
WHICH OF THE PINEROL PRISONERS BECAME THE “IRON MASK” OF THE BASTILLE?
The path to solving the riddle of “The Man in the Iron Mask” lies, in our opinion, in the plane of changing traditional historical methodology. Thus, by including in the historical search systematic approach and the “identification matrix” developed by the author on its basis, it was possible to trace the fates of all the prisoners of the “eight”, sent at different times to the castle of Pignerol (in August 1687, the nobleman d’Ers became the new prisoner), and to establish which of them became the “Iron mask" of Bastille.
What is the essence of the “identification matrix”? It is a logical table, the field of which is similar to a chessboard, where the horizontal lines are set by a chronological list of historical documents and facts relating directly or indirectly to the G8 participants, and the vertical lines correspond to the sum of the number of prisoners from the specified group who are simultaneously in Pignerol, Exile, Sainte-Marguerite and the Bastille. The points of their intersection correspond to the participation of certain prisoners in the events reflected in the chronological list of documents and facts. By connecting these points with straight lines, we get the “life paths” of each of the prisoners in the group. Various hypotheses for identifying the “Mask” have been explored. A hypothesis that produces zero instances of inconsistency historical events key facts, was considered as the most probable.
This is what a reconstruction of the main events in the four prisons during the years 1674-1703 looks like, obtained using the “identification matrix”. September 1674 - March 1675: one of Fouquet's servants, Champagne, died; Saint-Mars, by order of Louis XIV, gives the service of the ex-minister Eustache Dauger with the condition that he under no circumstances serve Lauzen and that no one except Fouquet and his servant La Riviera communicate with him. November - December 1677: the king's permission was received for Lauzen and Fouquet to walk separately from each other around the castle grounds, accompanied by their servants. November 1678 - January 1679: Louvois, bypassing Saint-Mars, sends a “personal letter” to Fouquet:
“Monseigneur, with great pleasure I carry out the order that the king has deigned to give me: to inform you that His Majesty intends to grant a significant mitigation of your imprisonment in the near future. But before that, His Majesty wishes to be informed whether the one called Eustache, who was given to you for your services, spoke with another servant assigned to you about how he was used before he showed up in Pignerol. His Majesty has ordered to ask you about this and to tell you that he expects you to tell me without any fear the truth about the above, in order that His Majesty may take such measures as he deems most appropriate after he learns from you , what exactly the aforementioned Eustache could tell his comrade about his past life. His Majesty wishes you to answer this letter privately, without saying anything about its contents to Monseigneur Saint-Mars, to whom I informed that the king wished him to deliver the paper to you, etc.”
Fouquet, broken physically and morally by his 18-year imprisonment, agreed to spy on Doge, find out from La Riviere and provide information of interest to the king, Louvois and Colbert. By orders of January 20 and February 15, 1679, the king and Louvois allowed Fouquet and Lauzen to see each other, talk, dine together, take joint walks throughout the fortress and communicate with its officers. Saint-Mars and the ex-minister are ordered to ensure that Dauger under no circumstances meets with Lauzen or anyone else except Fouquet and his servant La Riviera. At the same time, on January 20, another “personal message” from Louvois was sent to Fouquet, discovered by the historian J.C. Ptifis. “You will learn,” wrote Louvois, “the precautions mentioned by Saint-Mars, required by the king, which are taken to prevent Eustache Dauger from communicating with anyone other than you. His Majesty expects you to make every effort, since you know why no one should know what he knows." February - December 1679: Fouquet's answer satisfied Louis XIV, who thus reinsured himself in terms of precautions in relation to the Doge. As a reward, the king allowed Fouquet's wife, his daughter, son, Count de Vaux, brothers d'Agde and Maizières, as well as Fouquet's wife's attorney to go to Pignerol and communicate freely with the ex-minister. Upon arrival, his daughter and Count Vaux settled in the premises of the castle, next to their father. Saint-Mars was assigned to ensure that Dauger did not speak with anyone in private. On August 18, 1679, Louvois ordered Saint-Mars to send Lieutenant Blainvillier to Paris with a secret report that could not be “entrusted to the mail.” January - February 1680: Lauzen began to “drag” after Fouquet’s daughter. The prisoners quarreled and stopped seeing each other. From now on, Lauzen is Fouquet's enemy; Fouquet's relatives are removed from the castle and from the city. In January, Fouquet fell ill and a “package of medicines” was sent from Paris. On March 23, 1680, Saint-Mars sent a report to Louvois about sudden death Fouquet. However, no one had ever seen the usual documents - death certificates, autopsy and funeral certificates. Rumors spread throughout Paris about Fouquet's poisoning. At the same time, Colbert’s staff spread a legend that the ex-minister was allegedly released and died on the way to the capital in Chalon-on-Saône.
Louvois's reply to Saint-Mars, dated April 8, 1680, has been preserved. Louis XIV learned from the commandant's letter about Fouquet's death, as well as that Lauzen and the ex-minister communicated with each other without Saint-Mars' knowledge through a hole punched between the cells. The king ordered Lauzen to be transferred to Fouquet's cell after repairs, assuring the count and all those curious that the deceased's servants, La Riviere and Doge, had been released. In fact, it was ordered to put both of them in a separate cell and take the strictest measures so that they would not have any connections with the outside world. On April 9, the king ordered that the body of her late husband be given to the people of Fouquet's widow for transportation wherever they wish. However, according to official data, Fouquet was buried in Paris at the same time as his mother only on March 28, 1681, i.e. 370 days after his death. On April 22, 1681, after another change of the king's favorite, Lozen was released, but was initially forced to go into exile.
The circumstances mentioned above suggest that Fouquet was the victim of a conspiracy. Perhaps they tried to poison him or deliberately gave him drugs, after which they secretly transferred him to a punishment cell. This could have been carried out personally by Saint-Mars without the participation of the castle officers, but, apparently, with the help of Doge and La Riviere, who were then imprisoned in the “Low Tower”. This is indirectly evidenced by a letter from Louvois to Saint-Mars dated July 10, 1681. “I have established,” wrote Louvois, “how it became possible that the called Eustache could do what you were able to send me, and where he acquired the drugs necessary for the business ; You can’t think that you supplied him with them.” Researchers are still arguing about what we are talking about here.
It was Dauger and La Rivière - the “thrushes”, or “people of this sort” - who were transported by Saint-Mars, accompanied by his company, in complete secrecy, in a closed litter, in September 1681 to Fort Exile, located in the South-Western Alps. Mattioli, as well as two others from the Pignerol "eight", the Jacobin monk and Dubreuil, remain in Pignerol under the protection of one of Saint-Mars' lieutenants, Villebois. All expenses in Exile went to the department of Colbert de Croissy. The coffin with the body of the false Fouquet (but not Doge, as Arrez believed) was given out with a great delay to God-fearing relatives, when no one dared to figure out who was actually in it. At the turn of 1686-1687. in Exile he died of dropsy La Rivière, and in April 1687 Doget, accompanied by Saint-Mars, was transferred to Sainte-Marguerite, to a cell specially prepared for him.
The island of Sainte-Marguerite is separated from the Cote d'Azur and the city of Cannes by a strait 3 km wide. In the western part of the island there is a feudal castle founded by Richelieu and fortified by Vauban. It served as a state prison for a long time. Prosper Merimee, who visited Sainte-Marguerite in September 1834, left a detailed description of the gloomy dungeon where the man known as the “Iron Mask” was kept. “It is difficult to understand such a strange combination of cruelty and weakness in the jailers of the Iron Mask,” Merimee concluded his story. “I call jailers not those weak-willed performers who guarded him, but the people who ordered the imprisonment of the unfortunate man. If they were able to keep the poor fellow for almost twenty years in this harsh dungeon, then how did they lack the courage to end his suffering with a blow of a dagger? And really, why? After all, no one answered this question clearly!
Louvois died in 1691. His son L.-F.-M. Barbezier was appointed Minister of War. In January 1694, another lieutenant of Saint-Mars, Laprade, who became the commandant of the castle of Pignerol after the death of Villebois, informed Barbezier about the death of “the oldest prisoner of Pignerol, whose name he (allegedly - Y.T.) does not know.” Barbezier asks Saint-Mars to tell him this name in code. According to our hypothesis, he was Fouquet, who seemed to some researchers to be the “Iron Mask”. The four surviving “state criminals” of Pignerol (Mattioli, a Jacobin monk, Dubreuil and d’Ers) were transferred to the guard of Saint-Mars in Sainte-Marguerite in April 1694 in connection with military operations on the border with Savoy. It was Mattioli, the new Minister of War, who Barbezier considered a prisoner “of more importance” than those already on the island. This gives grounds for supporters of the “Italian version” to believe that Mattioli ended up in the Bastille after Sainte-Marguerite. However, based on Barbézier's correspondence with Saint-Mars, there is every reason to believe that he died on the island in April 1694.
Now Doge becomes the “old prisoner” of Saint-Mars. In September 1698, Saint-Mars arrived with him at the Bastille as governor in place of the deceased Besmo. November 19, 1703 Doge died. He was buried under a new fictitious name - Marscioli, consonant with the name of the prisoner Pignerol. Those around Louis XV and Louis XVI were told that the “Iron Mask” was just “a minister of one of the Italian princes” - the adventurer Mattioli. Thus, as a result of the “relay race” that arose largely spontaneously, the image of the “Iron Mask” for an external observer consisted of events, documents and facts relating to both Fouquet and Mattioli and Doget.
M. Chamillard, who replaced the deceased Barbezier in 1701, told Voltaire about the prisoner of the Bastille: “This is the man who knew all the secrets of Fouquet.” Probably, Dauger could know a lot about Fouquet, in particular, the secret of the events of March 23, 1680, the time of Fouquet’s possible “transformation” into the “unknown” Pignerol. In addition, according to Ptifis, Dauger also had his own secrets... But is it possible to find the key to explaining such a unique measure of secrecy as the need to hide Dauger’s face under a mask, and to keeping secret the fate of all the prisoners of the “seven” after the disappearance of Fouquet in 1680? and his strange funeral in Paris in 1681? Our first version, reflected in publications from 1977 to 1982, suggested that the king and his administration achieved several important but limited goals through these emergency measures. Fouquet and Mattioli disappeared without a trace. Doge took to his grave not only the secret of the extrajudicial execution of Fouquet, but, apparently, also some information, the disclosure of which would have been dangerous for the fate of Charles II of England.
It would seem enough? But the author of these lines still had doubts. Although the “identification matrix” revealed the secret of the many faces of the “Iron Mask”, and also convincingly showed that the “Bastille prisoner” is Doge, main question this 300-year-old historical mystery remained unresolved... After all, if Doge is a pseudonym, then who is he really? And if Fouquet really died on March 23, 1680 from a fatal illness, then is the Doget mask justified? And in general, is a mask necessary if Dyuzhe is a little-known person? After all, it is indisputable that he did not wear a mask in Pignerol, but in 1677 he walked with Fouquet around the castle grounds. And at the same time, from the end of 1678 - beginning of 1679, his exit from the cell was strictly prohibited.
“A mask,” Lalois emphasized, “is someone who is subject to a set of precautions that have never been applied to any other prisoner.” “We,” he continued, “do not know of anyone to whom his jailer would say, when placing him in prison: “If you speak to me or anyone else about anything other than your daily needs, I will stick my sword in you.” stomach". He was transported alone in a stretcher covered with oilcloth so that no one would see him; he alone was forced to wear a mask for five years, and this after 29 years of imprisonment and with no hope of becoming free except through death; he alone finally had his name changed so that his pseudonym “Doge” was finally removed... He alone was accompanied by the same jailer during all changes of places of imprisonment. He alone was served from beginning to end by the commandant of the prison and his first lieutenant... We know for sure today that he did not honor him, but he could always conclude that this man’s secret was very important.” Can the problem of identifying the “Man in the Iron Mask” be solved? Lalua asked, and he himself answered, “that this is impossible, that only chance will shed light on this. He should be sought among the people who disappeared in August 1669.”
“REINCARNATIONS” OF ESTACHE DAUGE
According to most researchers of the 10th century, as well as according to the author of the “identification matrix,” the most likely candidate for the role of the “Iron Mask” of the Bastille is the “simple servant” of Doge, who was arrested in August 1669 and died on November 19, 1703. Since everything experts are firmly convinced that “Eustache Doge” is a pseudonym; searches were undertaken in order to discover a character, unlike Voltaire and his followers, who was not necessarily noble, but who would “fit” into the complex of events, documents and facts related directly to "The Man in the Iron Mask" and his fate.
Thus, the Englishman A. Lang, based on the formula of the Louvois document “this is only a servant,” searched for a servant in French-English documents dating back to 1669, i.e., the year of Doget’s arrest. He found only a certain Martin, the servant of the French Protestant Roux Marsilly, accused of plotting against the life of Louis XIV and wheeled in Paris on June 22, 1669. Another Englishman, A. S. Barnes, pointed to the Abbé Pregnani, a secret agent of Louis XIV, sent with a secret mission in March 1669 to Charles II of England and disappeared simultaneously with the arrest of Doge in Dunkirk. Under the “Iron Mask,” the French historian E. Lalois tried to “discern” the priest E. Doget, a witness to the amorous adventures of the king with Madame Montespan. J. Mongredien and J.-C. Petifis believed that this was a man who knew all the secrets of Fouquet. M. Pagnol tried to prove that the twin brother of Louis XIV was hidden under the name Doge.” Finally, lawyer P.-M. Dijol suggested that the little Moor Nabo, who was in the service of Queen Maria Theresa, became a prisoner of the Bastille. This is the palette of researchers of the riddle of the “Iron Mask”.
Assessing the proposed hypotheses and various conjectures as a whole, it should be recognized that only Pagnol’s version can explain the need for a Bastille prisoner to wear a mask. In the early chapters of his book The Iron Mask, through a careful analysis of historical documents, reliable facts and events, he shows that the most likely person behind the mask is Estache Doget. However, in the final chapter, Pagnol, drawing, in his words, “from the pen of Alexandre Dumas,” sketches a draft of a novel in which quotes and historical facts are in quotation marks, and the rest is his fiction. The imagination of the author of this chapter has no limits: many historical figures of France of the 17th century are involved here. with a minimum number of cited documents and a huge array of contrived material.
As for other versions and hypotheses... the servant Marten did not manage to “attribute” any secrets at all; he knew nothing and served Roux Marcilla as a conscientious “postman.” Abbot Pregnani, after several years in obscurity, “showed up” on December 9, 1674 as a secret assistant to the French ambassador in Rome, where he died at the end of 1678 or beginning of 1679. Lalois’ version is “weak”, it does not correspond to the corrupt morals of the French court, as eloquently evidenced by the memoirs of Saint-Simon and other authors. Neither Mongredien nor Ptifis could specifically explain what secrets Fouquet and Doge were talking about.
What remains is Dijol's sensational version, which aroused interest in France in 1978. Dijol claimed, although without any evidence, that his mother-in-law, née Desgrange, told him the family secret of a prisoner of the Bastille, which had been preserved in her family for seven generations. At one time the old Chevalier Saint-Mars, younger son who married Mademoiselle Desgrange and soon died in one of the battles, allegedly revealed to his daughter-in-law that the prisoner of the Bastille was a little Moor, a servant of Queen Maria Theresa, wife of Louis XIV, who became her lover. This incredible event was confirmed by the fact that on November 16, 1664, the queen, according to memoirists, gave birth to a black daughter, Marie-Anne Bourbon. In 1666 (two years later?!) the angry king ordered the Moor to be sent into the service of the governor of Dunkirk, where the Moor Nabo was renamed Eustache Doge. In 1669 he was arrested by order of the king and sent to the castle of Pignerol.
Dijol's book, although it has many references to original documents from the archives of France, is similar to the 19th chapter of Pagnol's book "The Iron Mask". It is alarming that in none of the original documents cited by Dijol there is even a hint of the “blackness” of Eustache Dauger and La Riviere, whom he also ranked among the Moors. In order to somehow confirm his version with documents, Dijol resorted to distorting the texts of books from the 18th and 11th centuries, which describe the appearance of the Bastille prisoner. Let us give two examples of such “adjustments” by Dijol.
He, like many authors describing a prisoner of the Bastille, uses information about the meeting of another prisoner of this prison (from 1702 to 1713), Constantin Renneville, with the alleged “mask”. In the book “The French Inquisition, or the History of the Bastille,” Renneville describes this prisoner as follows: “He was a man of average height, but very broad, he wore a black bandage on his very thick hair, not at all touched by gray.” Dijol, quoting Renneville, removed the words “very wide” from this phrase. This can be explained by the fact that the little Moor Nabo is completely different from the verbal portrait of the Bastille prisoner. Another, more striking example. In 1698, Saint-Mars, on his way to Paris with “The Mask,” made a stop at his castle of Coat. The peasants of Saint-Mars, when the prisoner passed through the courtyard, saw “his teeth and lips, that he was tall and had white hair.” Dijol constructed another ending to this phrase: “... he was tall with white hair... one huge black ghost, white hair". Here he deliberately added famous quote in such words to represent Doge as a man with black skin.
At the same time, Dijol falsified historical facts. So he “sent” the entire court of Louis XIV in 1669 to Dunkirk, where the king supposedly had to await the return of Henrietta of Orleans from England after negotiations and the conclusion of a Franco-English alliance. According to Dijol, Louvois, fearing new meeting Nabo with the royal couple in Dunkirk, where he, under the name Eustache Doge, had been serving the wife of the city governor since 1666, ordered Doge to be arrested and sent to Pignerol. In fact, the court of Louis XIV set off not in 1669, but on April 28, 1670, and in order to keep the negotiations secret, not to Dunkirk, but to Flanders. Only Henrietta d'Orleans arrived in Dunkirk with her personal retinue. Negotiations were conducted not in England, but in Dover, where she left on May 24, 1670.
However, the most surprising thing is that, according to the publishers of Dijol's book, the Italian scientific society "Pro Loco Pinerolo" and its branch "Centre Permaneto di studio della Machero di Ferro" (Permanent Center for the Study of the "Iron Mask") at two of their congresses in 1974 and 1976 as a result of comparing the hypotheses of Mongredien, Arrez, Petifis and Dijol (replacing the deceased Pagnol), we came to the conclusion that “there is historical truth on the pages of this book.” However, what this “truth” is, not a word is said.
In particular, the question remains: how did the Queen of France get a black daughter, whom the king loved, gave her gifts, and when, at the age of 30, the “Moorish woman” went to a monastery, he assigned her a substantial lifelong pension. Maria Theresa, and after her death Madame Montespan, constantly took care of this unknown nun. Unraveling the family secret of Louis XIV turned out to be possible only on the basis of modern genetic science. Scientists from the Medical Genetic Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, with whom the author of the article consulted, claim that the birth of a daughter with black skin to the royal couple is quite real and is explained by the fact that among the distant ancestors of Maria Theresa - the Infanta of Spain - were Arabs. It is known that the vast majority of Spain, except for the mountainous regions of Navarre, was located in the 8th-11th centuries. under their complete authority.
THE MYSTERY OF THE “ENGLISH TRAIL” OF THE “IRON MASK”
Lalua's words about the "Iron Mask" in a concentrated form reflect the complexity of this historical and criminal mystery. They force the researcher to think deeply more than once: how can a known set of events, facts, and documents be transformed into a coherent logical system of evidence for the only possible option for identifying the Bastille prisoner?
Obviously, it is necessary to re-examine all the materials in depth and carefully in order to try to grasp some seemingly insignificant and unimportant nuances of historical events that may indicate the path to solving this riddle.
Such a search, conducted in 1980-1990, allowed us, despite the fact that most documents about the “Mask” were deliberately destroyed or lost, to identify a number of circumstances that were not noticed or not taken into account by researchers. Firstly, this is a logically unexplained change in the severity in the conditions of detention and treatment of Eustache Doget by the jailers at various stages of his imprisonment from August 1669 in Pignerol until his death in the Bastille in November 1703. Secondly, the coercion of Fouquet, a patient, tormented morally and physically by an 18-year imprisonment, to surveillance from the end of 1678 on a servant - Doge, and as a “reward” - temporary relief of the conditions of the prison regime from the end of 1679 to the beginning of 1680, as evidenced by the correspondence of Louvois with Fouquet, complete the contents of which were hidden from Saint-Mars. Thirdly, the complex interweaving of events associated with the mysterious death, burial of Fouquet and the fate of his servants Doge and La Riviera. And finally, fourthly, we noticed for the first time a certain correlation between the attitude of the Colbert-Louvois “clan” towards the Doge of the royal administration during the 34 years of his imprisonment and complex socio-political events in connection with the struggle for the English throne between Protestants and Catholics .
The unexpected role of Colbert de Croissy, brother of the famous minister of Louis XIV Jean-Baptiste Colbert, in financing the secret imprisonment of Eustache Dauger in Exile, led us to a new, “English trail” in the study of a 300-year-old mystery world history. After all, we must not forget that Croissy, before becoming Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in 1679, in 1668-1669. was ambassador to England and took an active part in the preparation and conclusion of the Treaty of Dover, which had a number of secret articles. This treaty was one of the key elements of Louis XIV's diplomacy. Continuing the foreign policy of his predecessors, cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin, the king of France, ideally dreaming of a world monarchy, during the 54 years of his personal reign - from 1661 to his death in 1715 - fought four great wars over the course of 32 years. His primary goal, which was achieved by any means necessary, was to expand the territory of France to its “natural borders” at the expense of the Spanish Netherlands, the Italian principalities, the Holy Roman Empire and ensure hegemony in Europe.
In the interests of the security of their rear, first Mazarin and then Louis did everything in various ways to distract England from its alliance with the Protestant states and to weaken its position in Europe and the world. To achieve this, Louis condoned the reactionary policies of the Stuarts in their struggle with parliament and their own people, and contributed to the incitement of bloody civil strife between English Catholics and Protestants. During the reign of Charles II and his brother, the ardent Catholic James II, Louis sought an alliance with them, and after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the accession of William III of Orange to the throne, he inspired conspiracies and military intervention to restore the Stuart dynasty.
Based on more wide panorama events and remaining within the framework of a systematic approach using logical matrices, we took advantage of the basic idea of Gödel’s “incompleteness” theorem, which implies the need to transfer research into a broader formalized logical system in the event of questions arising that cannot be resolved within a narrower one.
K. Gödel (b. 1906) - German mathematician; in 1931 he proved a theorem about the “incompleteness” of formal mathematical systems. It is now recognized that this theorem has general scientific significance (see: E. L. Feinberg, Two Cultures. Intuition and Logic in Art and Science. M., 1992, pp. 54-56).
A new analysis of the historical mystery of the “Iron Mask” was carried out by the author against the background of the military-political and social situation in Western Europe, taking into account the relationship between the French monarchy and its military and diplomatic services in 1660-1715. with England, Holland, the Italian principalities, the Holy See and the Society of Jesus.
To understand many of the contradictions in French-English relations during the reign of Louis XIV, let us return to the beginning of the 17th century, when the four kings of England: James I (1603-1625), Charles I (1625-1649), Charles II (1660-1685) and James II (1685-1688) - stubbornly clung to the absolutist doctrine and secretly or openly put the fight against Puritanism in the foreground. The Holy See, together with the Society of Jesus, did everything possible to achieve the ultimate goal through widespread penetration of Jesuits into England - the restoration of Catholicism as the state religion. Under James 1 they opened several colleges in England. The king allowed Catholics complete freedom worship in the country. Charles 1 continued this policy.
Revolution 1640-1660 and the execution of Charles I in 1649 temporarily stopped the advance of Catholic reaction. The restoration of the Stuart dynasty in 1660 in the person of Charles II returned everything to normal. The government of Charles II grossly violated the “Declaration of Breda” adopted on April 4, 1660, according to which the king promised political amnesty and freedom of religion. The Anglican Church was completely restored to the detriment of Presbyterianism and Independent sects. Charles pursued a foreign policy that bypassed parliament and did not ensure full protection of the economic interests of the English bourgeoisie and the new nobility. The Stuarts' desire to rule outside of parliament, relying on support external forces- the absolutist government of Louis XIV and catholic church, led to a new conflict with the bourgeoisie and gentry. In 1668, an alliance was concluded between three Protestant states - England, Holland and Sweden. But the very next year, Charles II and his trusted ministers began negotiations with Louis XIV in order to conclude an Anglo-French treaty.
Louis's foreign policy goal - weakening England's position in Europe and in the world due to increasing trade, colonial and maritime rivalry between it and the United Provinces (Holland), pandering to the reactionary policies of the Stuarts, as well as inciting hostility between English Catholics and Protestants - required significant diplomatic efforts.
At the first stage of implementing his plans, the king of France found, strange as it may seem at first glance, a partner in the person of Charles II of England. In turn, in Louis XIV, Charles saw a powerful Catholic monarch, an alliance with whom would allow him to solve three primary tasks. First, to acquire an ally to fight Holland at sea and in overseas territories; secondly, to become financially independent from parliament; thirdly, convert to the Catholic faith yourself and persuade your fellow citizens to do so, since this religion presupposed the complete subordination of subjects to the absolute authority of royal power. Charles invited Louis to enter into an alliance back in 1664. At the same time, Charles II was feeling the ground in Rome, seeking first from Pope Alexander VII (1655-1667) in 1663, and then from Clement I X (1667-1669) permission for a secret transition to Catholic faith in exchange for the king's support of English Catholics. During 1664-1666. Fruitless negotiations continued with the participation of the ambassadors of England and France. English ministers were jealous of French claims in the Spanish Netherlands, while they themselves began a naval war with Holland in March 1665.
Louis, foreseeing an inevitable conflict with Spain, did not want to spoil relations with the United Provinces and in January 1666 declared war on England. At the same time, written negotiations between the two monarchs resumed. On May 11, 1667, an Anglo-French secret agreement was signed, and immediately the troops of Marshal Turenne invaded Flanders. The “strange war” with England, which was limited to the long transition of the French fleet from Mediterranean Sea in the English Channel, ended in July 1667 with the signing of the Peace of Breda and the redistribution of Spanish lands in America. Franco-Dutch War 1667-1668 ended with the Treaty of Aachen, signed by Colbert de Croissy. France retained parts of Flanders with 11 cities, but returned Franche-Comté to Spain. The change in the international situation inevitably led to greater rapprochement between France and England.
SECRETS OF THE TREATY OF DOVER
The history of the conclusion of the Dover Franco-English Alliance, which destroyed the emerging coalition of Protestant states directed against France, deserves special discussion. After the failure of negotiations in Rome, Charles continued to stubbornly consider the project of restoring Catholicism in England and his conversion to the Catholic faith. The implementation of his plans, in particular receiving help from the King of France, was accelerated by the conversion of his brother, the Duke of York, to the Catholic faith, prepared in 1668 and completed. in 1672. On February 4, 1669, the king announced his intentions to Lord Arundel and Sir Clifford. It was decided to act in concert with France and ask for help from the French king. Some time later, Lord Arundel was sent to Paris to negotiate with Louis XIV and prepare articles for the future treaty. However, the sister of Charles II, the wife of Louis XIV's brother Philippe, Duchess Henrietta of Orleans, took the most active part in the negotiations. She was theirs ideological inspirer, conducting regular correspondence with her brother, who constantly consulted with her about all the details of both the conduct of negotiations and the specific content of future articles of the agreement. From the beginning of 1669, all their correspondence was conducted using a special code. In July 1668, Charles II informed his sister that he was ready to “enter into a closer alliance with France than before.” And at the same time, he expressed fears in connection with the French conquests in Flanders, the creation of a powerful French fleet, and Louis’s desire to turn his country into a major trading and maritime power, “and this,” Charles II emphasized, “is a reason for mistrust.” England cannot enter into an alliance with France “as long as trade, which determines large and main interests, English nation, will not be guaranteed."
From the very beginning of the negotiations, Charles II did not trust the French ambassador in London, Colbert de Croissy. In this regard, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Hugues Lyonne, in a letter dated February 23, 1669, recommended the ambassador to prepare the ground for sending to Charles a secret agent of Louis XIV - Abbot Pregnani, an astrologer, an experienced man, with a flexible mind. It was believed that it should arouse the interest of Charles II, who found pleasure and faith in astrology. The Duke of Monmouth undertook to recommend Pregnani to his father. The abbot had to act according to Croissy's orders and instructions. Pregnani arrived in London in March 1669.
The situation was complicated by the fact that Louis XIV himself treated Pregnani with distrust. He agreed with the idea of sending this impromptu diplomat, but reserved the right to quickly end his mission if it did not produce tangible results. So he did. We first learn about Pregnani from a letter dated February 23, 1669, and already on May 4 he is recalled. The king made him completely dependent on Croissy, forbidding him from direct correspondence with both himself and Lyonne. All efforts of Pregnani, as an astrologer, predictor and soothsayer, to enter into a trusting relationship with Charles II were unsuccessful. His attempts to instill in the king the idea of an alliance with France through Monmouth and the Duke of Buckingham also failed. It ended with Lyonne forbidding Pregnani to act using these courtiers. Then the abbot tried to be useful to Croissy personally. Lyonne wrote that Pregnani might, in this case, stay in London to receive his reward.
However, already on May 4, and then absolutely ultimatically on May 29, Lyonne, on behalf of the king, demanded, referring to his order, the return of Pregnani to France without any delay. The king “saw that he would now be unable to accomplish anything there for the cause that His Majesty had in mind.” On June 1, Lyonne wrote to Croissy for the third time asking Pregnani, whose mission was secret to all the English except Charles II, to return immediately. Croissy in letters to his brother, J.-B. Colbert, dated June 17, and again July 4, 1669, spoke with great sympathy of the abbot and his efforts in carrying out his mission, which ended in complete failure, but was accompanied by extraordinary expenses. Croissy expressed the hope that they would be paid to him and Pregnani after their report on English affairs to the king on July 27, 1669. Lyonne informed Colbert de Croissy of the return of Abbot Pregnani to France. On July 28, the king signed an order for the arrest of an unknown person, named in the final version as Eustache Doge. Along with Dauger's arrest, the abbot also disappeared for several years, which led to the identification of these characters.
After the failure of Pregnani's mission in London, the matter of negotiations passed into the hands of the main mediator between Louis XIV and Charles II, the Duchess of Orleans. Her role in concluding the Dover Agreement was extremely significant. Pretty, graceful and intelligent, the Duchess of Orleans was the complete opposite of her brother Charles II, a vain man, mired in love adventures, who did not understand the real situation either in his own country or in Europe. She realized that Anglo-Dutch rivalry at sea was forcing England to desire “the establishment of close friendship with the King of France.”
Charles II and his brother, the Duke of York, insisted that Princess Henrietta come to England to complete negotiations. In May 1670, Louis XIV undertook a diversionary maneuver. The entire court with the king and queen left for Flanders. Count Lozen commanded the royal escort. The king's brother Philip of Orleans, Henrietta's husband, set the condition that the duchess, without visiting England, should remain in Dover for no more than three days, and then immediately return to Paris. In Lille, Madame separated from the royal cortege with her personal retinue and on May 24 arrived in Dunkirk, from where she left for Dover. There, at the head of the English squadron, Charles II, the Duke of York, Prince Rupert and the Duke of Monmouth were waiting for her. The negotiations took several more days and ended with the signing of the Anglo-French secret Treaty of Dover on June 1, 1670. On the English side it was signed by the Earl of Arlington, Lord Arundel, Chevalier Clifford and Chevalier Bellids; for France - Colbert de Croissy. Here are the main provisions of the agreement.
The King of England decided to publicly declare his adherence to the Catholic religion, reconciling himself with the Roman Church as soon as the welfare of his kingdom was ensured. In order to support this declaration, Charles II received an advance of 2 million livres. Louis XIV remained faithful to the Treaty of Aachen with Spain, which gave Charles the opportunity to remain faithful to the Triple Alliance. Both kings declare war on the United Provinces: Charles II must supply 50 warships and 6 thousand soldiers for the war on land; Louis - 30 ships and the remaining soldiers required for land operations. The combined fleet should be commanded by the Duke of York. France provided the King of England with an annual subsidy of 3 million livres for the war.
This was the triumph of Henrietta of Orleans. Charles II presented her with 6 thousand pistoles as a gift, and when she was preparing to leave, he gave her jewelry valued at another 2 thousand. In the duchess’s retinue was the charming Mademoiselle Keroual, seeing whom, the voluptuous Charles asked to leave him “this jewel so that keep it near you." Henrietta rejected his advances, but he obtained a promise that Kerual would return to England if he secured her a position as a maid of honor with the queen, his wife. The following year, Keroual, a secret French agent, went to England, where she soon became the king's favorite and the Duchess of Portsmouth, who remained for a decade and a half French influence on the policies of Charles II.
The secret treaty could not be submitted to parliament for ratification. He needed cover. Therefore, on December 21, 1670, five members of the Cabal ministry - Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley and Lauderdale - signed a second treaty with France, which included some articles of the first, in addition to Charles’s promise to convert to Catholicism, Buckingham agreed to begin military operations against Holland in the spring 1672 The need to wage war before Parliament was justified by Anglo-Dutch rivalry at sea and the benefits of trade with France.
Meanwhile, Louis XIV had long understood that Charles II’s promise to convert to Catholicism was only an excuse to lure money. It was obvious that France would not have to send troops to England if its king decided to publicly break with Protestantism. At the same time, French money and dynastic ties maintained a precarious balance in Anglo-French relations. The official subsidy of Louis XIV was 3 million livres annually. In reality, Charles received from France until the end of his reign 9950 thousand livres, which corresponded to 740 thousand pounds. Art. Of these, 8 million are within the framework of a secret agreement. The very content of the agreement and the conditions of its signing were so immoral and shocking that, according to the historian F. Fraser, they became widely known only in 1830, when its full text was published.
A tragic fate befell main character secret Treaty of Dover - Henrietta d'Orléans. On June 16, 1670, she was given a ceremonial welcome at the French court after returning from Dover. And two weeks later, on June 30, at two o’clock in the morning, the Duchess suddenly died in agony at the age of 26. Rumors of poisoning spread throughout France and England.
Henrietta's unexpected death could cause significant damage to French-English relations and the implementation of the strategic plans of Louis XIV. Therefore, on the same day, French doctors, in the presence of several Englishmen - royal surgeon A. Bose, the English ambassador, Abbot Montagu and others - performed an autopsy on the body of the deceased. Doctors were unable to establish the true cause of the duchess’s death, but they rejected the version of poisoning. A heartfelt letter from Louis XIV was sent to Charles II. Marshal Bellefond was sent to London on behalf of the King of France with condolences, a message about the autopsy of Madame’s body and its results to refute rumors about the poisoning of the sister of the English king.” As a result, relations between England and France stabilized, as evidenced by the official Treaty of Dover, concluded at the end of 1670, in which there were no articles relating to religion.
Modern doctors, who at the author’s request familiarized themselves with the autopsy report of the deceased, consider the cause of her death to be peritonitis resulting from a perforated stomach ulcer or, even more likely, from acute pancreatitis.
At the beginning of 1672, the French army invaded Holland, and the English fleet attacked a Dutch convoy on March 23 of the same year. The successful French offensive was prevented by William of Orange, who was elected Stadtholder, Captain General and Grand Admiral of the Republic. On June 22, 1672, on his orders, the Dutch destroyed the dams, and already on June 29, peace negotiations began in Versailles. After the defeat of the Anglo-French fleet at Texel, England withdrew from the war on February 19, 1674, by the Treaty of Westminster. France continued fighting during 1672-1678, having acquired an irreconcilable enemy in the person of William of Orange.
The war between a coalition of states led by France and an anti-French faction led by the United Provinces ended as a result of the Nymwegen peace negotiations (1678-1679). Six peace treaties were signed in Nymwegen: Franco-Dutch, Franco-Spanish, Franco-Danish, Swedish-Dutch, and the Treaty of Brandenburg with France and Sweden. France received Franche-Comté and a number of other territories in the Spanish Netherlands; French rights were recognized in Guiana and Senegal. Maastricht was returned to Holland and the high customs tariffs introduced by Colbert were abolished. This treaty was a major diplomatic success for France and strengthened its military and diplomatic hegemony in Europe.
ON THE DOUBLE TRAIL OF THE “IRON MASK”
Having outlined part of the initial historical background against which the events took place, which, as we will see later, had an impact on the fate of “The Man in the Iron Mask,” let us now trace some key moments of the synchronous dichotomous series between the conditions of Eustache Doget’s imprisonment and service in various prisons and the events of the military and diplomatic services of France in cooperation with similar services of England and Holland.
1677 The Doge, being Fouquet's new servant since 1675, could still accompany him on walks around the castle. Although Louvois, based on the time and place of the arrest, could suspect that the “simple servant” was aware of some matters related to Charles II. In August 1678, the so-called “papist conspiracy” was discovered in England, aimed at restoring the rights of the Catholic Church. Among the objective factors that made society immediately believe in the existence of a conspiracy was distrust of the policies of Charles II. The king assembled an army of 20,000, ostensibly for war with France, but, having received a secret subsidy of almost 1 million livres from Louis XIV in 1678, he refused to declare war. Meanwhile, Catholics, and the Jesuits in particular, were outraged by the marriage of William of Orange with the daughter of James, the Protestant Mary, the direct heir to the throne, concluded with the consent of Charles and Lord Treasurer Danby. The dreams of adherents of Catholicism can be judged from one of the letters from the secretary of the Duke of York - a certain Colman, a clever intriguer who knew a lot about the true plans of the king and his brother. “On their hands (supporters of the Catholic party.-Yu.T.) there is now a great thing,” he wrote, “no more, no less than the conversion of three states to Catholicism and, perhaps, the complete destruction of the poisonous heresy that has dominated for so long most of Europe. Their success would deal the Protestant religion such a blow as it has not received since its inception.” Official science assesses the conspiracy only as a kind of provocation that caused panic in the state.
It began after a certain Titus Oates, a former Jesuit, stated that on April 24, 1678, a meeting of a congregation of English Jesuits took place at the White Horse Tavern. A decision was allegedly made to assassinate Charles II and restore Catholicism in England. In fact, the meeting of the congregation took place at the Duke of York's, the king's brother. Titus Ots' statement caused a strong reaction. The country was excited and believed in anything. Moreover, the queen and the Tory minister Danby were involved in the conspiracy. An investigation by Parliament led to the execution of 35 Catholics. Charles was forced to silently agree, although, as the official chronicle states, “Charles, Danby and the Tories knew full well that the conspiracy was pure fiction, but were afraid to admit it.”
French journalist of the 19th century. Gabriel Jogan-Page (pseudonym Leo Taxil), who managed to infiltrate the Society of Jesus and get to its archives, had a different assessment of the papist conspiracy network. He wrote that the conspiracy really had the goal of a coup d'etat, the assassination of Charles II and the restoration of Catholicism in England as the state religion. Some historians believe his account of the conspiracy is a fantasy and a hoax. However, the modern French historian Bernard Cottret, based on publications of 1681, 1686 and 1824, summarized in the works of J. Pollock and M. de Certeau, calls for a return to a serious assessment of these events. Be that as it may, the “papist conspiracy” intensified the political struggle. The Treaty of Dover was denounced. Parliament expelled all Catholics from the army and declared James disqualified from the throne. The problem of his succession to the throne has now become acute form. Charles, emphasizing the absence of any other heir, publicly declared the illegality of his Protestant son, the Duke of Monmouth's claim to the throne.
In November 1678, after the failure of the "papist plot", Louis XIV and Louvois became interested in what Doge had been doing before he came to Pignerol. Immediately, as soon as Fouquet agreed to become Louvois’ informer and find out that Doge knew about something very important, the conditions of the ex-minister’s imprisonment were significantly softened, and his servants, Doge, became stricter. At the same time, on March 13, 1679, Louvois asked Saint-Mars to inform him about the health of Eustache Dauger. Louvois's “personal correspondence” with Fouquet continued from the end of 1678 and almost all of 1679. Almost all of the letters from it were deliberately destroyed or disappeared. However, from the surviving fragments, as well as from the well-known letters of Louvois and Saint-Mars with close dating, it is possible to reconstruct the main content of the ill-fated “agreement” between Fouquet, on the one hand, and the king and Louvois, on the other. Fouquet was promised a significant easing of the prison regime, the opportunity to meet his relatives, and, apparently, release from prison in the near future. In return, the ex-minister, after certain moral hesitations, agreed to the following demands of the king and Louvois. Firstly, Fouquet undertook to find out through La Riviera everything about the Doge’s past, and most importantly, what he was doing before his arrest; secondly, Fouquet, together with Saint-Mars, had to ensure that Dauger never met Lauzen, did not accompany Fouquet on walks around the fortress, and did not speak with anyone alone; thirdly, so that Fouquet should not tell anyone - neither Lauzen nor his relatives - what he had learned about Doge's past... However, as can be concluded from subsequent facts, Fouquet was shamelessly deceived. Doge's secrets were the reason why the king did not allow him to leave Pignerol alive.
The information received through Fouquet and the measures taken by him and Saint-Mars regarding the surveillance of the Doge were highly appreciated by Louis XIV. Back in 1677, Saint-Mars received 10 thousand ecus from the king as a reward for the strict and precise fulfillment of his duties as a jailer, which allowed him to acquire land holdings, in particular du Coat, de Dimont and d'Erimon. This gave the king the opportunity to grant him the title of nobility in 1678. He became Monseigneur de Saint-Mars, Seigneur du Coat, de Dimont and d'Erimon. In 1679 he received the rank of junior lieutenant of the musketeers. Is this a coincidence?!
At this time, the Tory “Cavalier Parliament” (1661-1678) was dissolved in England, which Charles II intended to use to restore absolutism in the country. In February 1679, a new parliament was elected with an overwhelming number of Whigs. Charles was forced to send Jacob to Brussels, began to disband the army and promised to dismiss Danby. The Habeas Corpus Act was passed, which was a serious step towards ensuring individual freedom. However, a little later, the king returned James and ordered his son, Monmouth, commander of the royal guard, to leave the country. The opposition demanded a change of course foreign policy and a break with France. At the beginning of 1680, Monmouth, contrary to the king's orders, returned to London. In one “pamphlet they pointed to him as the leader of the nation in the future struggle “against papacy and tyranny.” In December 1680, England was again in panic due to rumors of a new conspiracy against the king.
In this and the two subsequent parliaments (October 1680 - January 1681; 21 - 28 March 1681), the Whigs concentrated their efforts on preventing James from succeeding his brother and becoming king. However, they found it difficult to choose between James's daughter, the Protestant Mary, who in 1677 married William of Orange, grandson of Charles I, and the Duke of Monmouth, the natural son of Charles II. In the end they settled on Monmouth's candidacy. A crisis of succession to the throne arose - one of the most acute in its foreign and domestic policies. By the convening of the March parliament, Charles’s position seemed hopeless: the treasury was empty, the army was ready to rebel. The king pulled off a clever maneuver by proposing the following compromise: James would inherit the throne, with William and Mary as regents to rule the country on his behalf. In response, the Whig leader Shaftesbury suggested that the king recognize Monmouth as heir.
However, Charles II, having received new subsidies from Louis XIV, went on the offensive, relying on the Tory gentry, the church and the army. He dissolved parliament, placing Tory representatives in the most important posts, and addressed the nation with a proclamation supporting the legitimate succession to the throne. In 1681-1682. Whig leaders began to prepare an armed uprising, for which Monmouth traveled around the provinces and recruited supporters. At the same time, in 1681, the “House of Rye Ears” conspiracy arose to kill Charles and Jacob. Both plots failed. The Whig leader Shaftesbury fled to Holland in November 1682. Other leaders, notably Russell and Sidney, were executed. In September 1682, Monmouth was arrested at Stafford, but was released, and in 1683 he went into exile in The Hague.
After Fouquet's mysterious death in March 1680, two prisoners from the "Low Tower", whom the king considered "important enough not to be transferred into other hands", were carried in closed litters to Exile in October 1681. On March 2, 1682, Louvois conveyed to Saint-Mars the king's order to strengthen security measures for prisoners, which excluded even their conversation with anyone from the fort garrison. On March 11, Saint-Mars listed measures to tighten security. In May of the same year the king
No related links found
Iron Mask - the most mysterious prisoner of the era of Louis XIV remained in history under this name. All that is reliably known about this man is the number under which he was registered in the Bastille (64489001). Presumably, he was born in the 40s of the 17th century. He was kept in different prisons. In 1698 he was finally placed in the Bastille, where he died.
Historical information
In fact, prisoner No. 64489001 did not wear an iron mask, but only a velvet mask. It was supposed to hide his identity from outsiders, but in no way serve as a means of torture (like an iron one). Even the guards themselves did not know what kind of criminal was wearing this mask. Its mystery gradually became the reason for the emergence of numerous legends and speculations.
The prisoner in the iron mask was first mentioned in the Secret Notes of the Persian Court, published in Amsterdam in 1745. The author of the notes indicates that under number 64489001 the illegitimate son of the royal Louis XIV and his beloved, the Duchess de La Vallière, was kept in the casemate. He bore the title of Count of Vermandois. In conclusion, he was caught for slapping his brother, the Grand Dauphin.
This version is absolutely untenable, since the real Count of Vermandois died at the age of 16 in 1683. Before that, he managed to take part in the war with Spain, so he simply did not have time for such a long imprisonment. Jesuit Griffe, who served as a confessor at the Bastille, recorded that the mysterious prisoner was first brought to the Bastille in 1698, and he died in 1703.
Elder brother or twin of Louis XIV
Later, Francois Voltaire suggested that the gentleman in the iron mask could be the half-brother of Louis XIV himself. The king did not need rivals, so he imprisoned his brother in the Bastille, having previously obliged him to wear a mask on his face. Obviously, all the mystery that surrounded this prisoner could be connected with this. Voltaire expressed this conjecture in his 1751 work “The Age of Louis XIV.”
Anne of Austria was considered infertile for a long time. Then she gave birth to an illegitimate son, after which the legitimate heir to the throne, Louis XIV, was born. The latter, having learned about the presence of an older brother, decided to end his life. In addition, there were rumors that Louis himself was not the king’s own son. This called into question his right to the crown.
Execute the son of the French queen and sibling Louis XIV could not, so he chose to imprison the unfortunate young man forever. Wearing a mask is a way to hide a secret that could cause a coup. History has not preserved the name of this supposed older brother.
There have also been speculations that the Iron Mask is actually the twin brother of Louis XIV. The appearance of male twins among the royal couple spontaneously gave rise to a lot of problems with the succession to the throne. One of the queen's sons had to be sacrificed in order to maintain stability in the country. The boy was raised secretly. Having matured, Louis XIV learned about his twin brother, who looked like him like a reflection in a mirror. Fearing for his crown, Louis ordered the elimination of his rival.
Ercole Mattioli
The fourth version was the assumption that the famous Italian adventurer Ercole Antonio Mattioli was hiding under the mask. In 1678, an agreement was concluded between him and Louis XIV: Mattioli undertook to persuade his overlord to give the king the fortress of Casale. The Italian successfully sold this state secret to several countries for a substantial reward. For this he was sentenced to life imprisonment by the French government.
General Bulond
The reason for the emergence of another version was the secret notes of Louis XIV. The French king kept encrypted diaries, which were deciphered several centuries later by the famous cryptographer Etienne Bazerie. It turned out that the masked prisoner could also be the French general Vivien de Bulonde, who covered himself and France with indelible shame in one of the battles of the Nine Years' War. This version, like all others, has not been proven 100%.
The real Peter I
Various historians and researchers, intrigued by the great mystery, continued to put forward all sorts of versions regarding the identity of the prisoner in the iron mask. Most historians came to the conclusion that it could have been one of the conspirators who dared to take aim at royal power. Among them: the Lorraine Armoise, the royal minister Fouquet, Cardinal Mazarin, etc.
Another version even concerned Russia. According to it, Peter I himself, and the true tsar, was imprisoned in the Bastille. In 1698 - precisely when prisoner No. 64489001 appeared in the Bastille - the Russian Tsar was allegedly replaced. Peter I was then carrying out a diplomatic mission (“Grand Embassy”) in Europe.
The true, Orthodox Russian Tsar, who sacredly revered traditions, went abroad. The European returned, dressed in a “basurman dress” and with a whole bunch of innovations wild for patriarchal Rus'. After this, they began to say that Peter the Great had been replaced abroad with an impostor. This substitution was later associated with the Iron Mask. It is still not known who actually wore it.
In 1751 Voltaire published his book The Age of Louis XIV. Chapter XXV contained the following story: “A few months after the death of this minister (Mazarin - Author), an unprecedented event occurred, and what is very strange is that it was ignored by historians. An unknown prisoner, taller than average, young, and possessing the noblest bearing, was sent to a castle on the island of Saint Margaret, located near Provence. While traveling, he wore a mask with steel latches on the bottom, which allowed him to eat without removing the mask. The order was given to kill him if he removed his mask.
He remained on the island until a trusted officer named Saint-Mars, governor of Pinerol, having taken command of the Bastille, went to the island of St. Margaret and - this was in 1690 - took the masked prisoner to the Bastille. Before this move, the Marquis de Louvois came to the island. The unknown was taken to the Bastille, where he was accommodated as well as was possible in such a place. He was not refused anything, no matter what he asked. The prisoner had a taste for extremely fine linen and lace, and received it. Played the guitar for hours. They prepared the best for him gourmet dishes, and the old doctor of the Bastille, who treated this man, who had peculiar illnesses, said that he never saw his face, although he often examined his body and tongue. According to the doctor, the prisoner was remarkably built, his skin was slightly dark; The voice was striking just with its intonations alone. This man never complained about his condition, and never once betrayed his origins.
The unknown died in 1703 and was buried near the parish church of Saint-Paul. What is doubly surprising is that when he was brought to the island of St. Margaret, not a single disappearance of famous people was recorded in Europe.”
The following year, republishing his big book, Voltaire returned to this plot again. This indicates that the first story aroused the curiosity of readers... Here are the new “clarifications”:
“The prisoner was, without a doubt, noble, this follows from what happened in the first days on the island. The governor himself set the table for him and then left, having previously locked the cell. One day, a prisoner scratched something on a silver plate with a knife and threw it out the window towards the boat, which was located near the shore, right at the foot of the tower. The fisherman who owned this boat picked up the plate and brought it to the governor. The latter, extremely concerned, asked the fisherman: “Have you read what is scratched on this plate, and has anyone seen it in your hands?” “I can’t read,” answered the fisherman. “I just found her, and no one except me saw her.” This man was kept locked up until the governor finally found out that the fisherman really couldn’t read, and no one saw the plate.” “You can go,” he told the fisherman. “You’re lucky that you can’t read.”
One of those who knew these facts, a person worthy of trust, is still alive today. Monsieur de Chamillard was the last minister who knew this secret. His son-in-law, Second Marshal de La Feuillade, told me that he begged his father-in-law on his knees, when he was on his deathbed, to reveal to him who the man known as the Man in the Iron Mask really was. Chamilar answered him that this was a state secret and he swore an oath never to disclose it. Finally, there are still many of our contemporaries who know the truth, but I do not know a fact that is neither more unusual nor better established.”
A year later, Voltaire, in his “Appendix to the Age of Louis XIV,” addressed the man in the Mask for the third time. In response to doubts expressed about the story of the plate, Voltaire argued that the story was often told by Monsieur Riusse, the old military commissar from Cannes. However, “the story of the misadventures of this state prisoner was spread through all the newspapers throughout the country, and the Marquis d'Arzhap, whose honesty is known, learned about it long ago from Riusse and other people known in his province.”
After which Voltaire turns to the curious facts that he discovered earlier: “Many people ask me who was this unknown and at the same time so famous captive? I am just a historian and in no way a sorcerer. It was certainly not the Comte de Vermandois; it was also not the Duke de Beaufort, who disappeared only during the siege of Kandy and who could not be identified in the body beheaded by the Turks. Mr. de. Shamilar quit somehow to get rid of persistent questions last marshal de La Feuillade and M. de Comartin, the phrase that this was the man who owned all the secrets of M. Fouquet.
He admitted, however, that the prisoner was taken to the Bastille after the death of Mazarin. However, why such precautions in relation to only Fouquet's trusted representative - a person, in this case, of secondary importance?
First of all, we must reflect on the fact that not a single significant person disappeared during this time. At the same time, it is clear that the prisoner was an extremely important person, and everything that was connected with him was always kept secret. That's all we can guess."
Seventeen years have passed since the first publication about the Iron Mask. The surviving correspondence from that time reveals attempts to find out the truth. Princess Victoria begged her father, Louis XV, to tell her the secret of Alas.
In 1770, Voltaire decided to once again return to the Iron Mask. In his “Questions for the Encyclopedia” there is a phrase that contains suspicions previously expressed only in the form of hints: “It is clear that if he was not allowed into the courtyard of the Bastille and was allowed to speak even to his doctor only with his face covered with a mask, then this was done out of fear that some amazing resemblance to someone else might be noticed in his features.” The interest in this book was so great that a reprint was required in 1771. The exciting passage about the “amazing resemblance” was, of course, reprinted and, moreover, continued by the “Publisher’s Supplement,” which is extremely innocent in form. You can guess from whose pen this “explanation” came!
“The Iron Mask was, without a doubt, the brother - the elder brother - of Louis XIV, whose mother had that particularly delicate taste that Voltaire speaks of in relation to fine linen. After I read about this in the memoirs of that era, the queen’s predilection reminded me of the same tendency in the Iron Mask, after which I finally ceased to doubt that it was her son, of which all other circumstances had long convinced me... »
The “publisher” then explains how this sensational similarity can prove him right. He recalls that by the time the future Louis XIV was born, Louis XIII had not lived with the queen for a long time. She was barren for a long time, and this worried the royal family. Sometimes she allowed herself some deviation from the rules of strict morality, as a result of which a child was born. She trusted Richelieu, who accepted everything necessary measures in order to hide the birth of a child. The Queen and the Cardinal raised the child in secret. It is possible that Louis XIV only learned of the existence of his older brother after Mazarin's death. “Then the monarch learned of the existence of a brother, an elder brother, whom his mother could not disown, and who possessed characteristics that revealed his origin; the monarch reasoned that this child, born in wedlock, could not now, after the death of Louis XIII, be declared illegitimate without causing political complications and a loud scandal. Louis XIV used the only prudent and most just method of strengthening his personal peace and the peace of the state, and this saved him from having to resort to cruelty, which would have seemed politically necessary to another, less conscientious and magnanimous monarch than Louis XIV.
“It seems to me that the more you study the history of that time, the more you are amazed at the combination of circumstances that testify in favor of this assumption,” wrote Voltaire.
Finita la comedy. A curtain. Over the course of twenty years, Voltaire developed his most remarkable script that ever existed. It has everything: a mysterious birth, the elder brother of the “greatest king in the world,” state interests, the imprisonment of an innocent man. Finally, the mask that the unfortunate prince had to wear all his life - the iron mask!
So says the legend, whose father is Voltaire.
But what does History say?
The Treaty of Cherak granted Louis XII the territory of Pinerol in 1631 - Pinero in Italian. This small town, located on the Italian side of the Alps, between Briançon and Turin, was the headquarters of the command of the raid in Perusa, one of the ports of Italy.
Richelieu, of course, fortified this area. Flat roofs and small turrets contrasted with steep bastions, earthen barriers and ditches. Not far from the city, the traveler could see a fortress and a huge Donjon. This menacing colossus must have seemed somewhat out of place under the Italian sky. It was similar to the Bastille, the Temple Tower or the Donjon of Vincennes: the same medieval architecture. Three large towers stood on the sides of the massive rectangular structure, in addition, there were two more small corner towers. The donjon was completely separated from the fortress by a high round wall. The fortress was under the command of the royal lieutenant; It is curious that at the same time the donjon was not subject to the authority of the lieutenant, but this fact finds the following explanation - since 1665, the Pinerol donjon was, by order of Lovois, under the command of Monsieur Saint-Mars.
Monsieur de Saint-Map will forever remain in history as an exemplary jailer.
In 1650 he became a musketeer. His superiors valued him as serious, reliable, “prudent and accurate in his service.” In 1660 he became a corporal, and a year later - a sergeant. Unexpectedly, fate smiled at him: d'Artagnan instructed him to arrest Pelisson, while he himself was detained in Nantes Fouquet. In this case, Saint-Mars showed his best side. When they began to look for a person to manage the Pinerol donjon, who was suitable for supervising Fouquet, the choice of the sovereign - and this is quite natural - fell precisely on Saint-Mars.
He was not an evil man. Only very ambitious. And greedy for money. He was somewhat upset that his fellow musketeers had covered themselves with glory while he was forced to guard prisoners. During every military campaign, he begged Louvois to send him to the front line. Louvois refused, but increased his salary. Saint-Mars' career as a jailer lasted forty years. Continuous promotions led him - from one prison to another - to command of the Bastille.
It was in Pinerol that one fine day Saint-Mars received a new prisoner, accompanied by special instructions. He had no doubt that the man he had been assigned to guard with such care would later cause a great stir throughout the world. This prisoner was - no more, no less - the one who would later go down in history as the Man in the Iron Mask...
The date of his arrival in Pinerol is unknown. Otherwise, it would be possible to immediately establish who was hiding under the mask. The fact is that archival documents relating to the prison run by Saint-Mars have been preserved, and they are very accurate. They inform us in detail about the events that took place in Pinerola: the arrival of the prisoners, their names, the reasons for their imprisonment, the deplorable episodes of their imprisonment, their illnesses, deaths, releases, if such happened occasionally.
The only thing that can be said with certainty is that after 1665 a prisoner came into the custody of Saint-Mars, and this prisoner was the Man in the Iron Mask. In order to determine the identity of the mysterious person, it is necessary to resort to the method of exclusion and select from the list of prisoners those who meet the necessary characteristics that allow them to bear such a “title”.
It is indisputably established that the masked man will follow Saint-Mars all the way to the Bastille. In 1687 Saint-Mars became governor of the island of Sainte-Marguerite; the prisoner was also transferred there. Eleven years have passed. The jailer and the prisoner grew old together. Finally, at the age of seventy-two, Saint-Mars was appointed commandant of the Bastille. Minister Barbezou, son and successor of Louvois, wrote to Saint-Mar: “The king finds it possible for you to leave the island of St. Margaret and go to the Bastille with your old prisoner, taking all precautions so that no one sees him or knows about him.” . You may write in advance to His Majesty's lieutenant at the Bastille to keep a room ready to accommodate the prisoner immediately upon his arrival."
Saint-Mars had no choice but to obey. He always obeyed.
But how to do that? Finally he had an idea: instead of hiding his prisoner, why not just hide his face? Without a doubt, it was thanks to this idea that the Man in the Iron Mask was born. Let us note once again - never before this moment had the mysterious prisoner worn a mask. SenMar succeeded - for a long time! - keep his secret. The first time the prisoner put on a mask was during a trip to Paris. In this guise he went down in history...
Actually, the mask was made of black velvet. Voltaire supplied it with steel latches. The authors who took up this topic after him wrote about it as being made “entirely of steel.” It got to the point that historians debated the question of whether the unfortunate prisoner could shave; they mentioned small tweezers, “also made of steel,” for removing hair. (Moreover, in 1885 in Langres, among old scrap iron, they found a mask that perfectly matched Voltaire’s description. There is no doubt: an inscription in Latin confirmed its authenticity...) In August 1698, Saint-Mars and his prisoner went to path. Participating in the journey were Formanua, nephew and lieutenant Saint-Mars, priest Giraud, “Major” Rosarge, Sergeant Lecue and prison guard Antoine Larue, simply Rue. They had to spend a whole month on the road. Without a doubt, this journey played a big role in creating the legend of the Mask. It can be said that the masked prisoner caused a great stir with his trip. Evidence of this has survived to this day.
Saint-Mars was rich. Very rich. His income, according to Lovoy, "was as great as the income of the governors governing large territories in France." And prison is not conducive to expenses... After his death, Mask’s guard, who received noble title, left, in addition to the lands of Dimon, Palto and Irimon, luxurious furnishings, also six hundred thousand francs in cash. But the trouble was that poor Saint-Mars, inseparable from his prisoners, especially from one of them, had never even visited the lands he had acquired. He wanted to take advantage of a trip to Paris to stay at Coats, near Villeneuve-le-Roi, “a beautiful structure and style of Henry IV, standing in the middle of a forest and a vineyard.” Seventy years later, Saint-Mars's great-nephew Formanois de Coat wrote, at the request of Freron, Voltaire's enemy, a story about a memorable visit: “The Masked Man arrived on a stretcher, followed by Saint-Mars's litter: they were accompanied by several horsemen. The peasants moved towards their master. Saint-Mars shared the meal with his prisoner, who sat with his back to the dining room windows overlooking the courtyard. The peasants whom I asked did not see whether he ate with a mask on or not; but they clearly saw that on the sides of the plate of Saint-Mars, who was sitting facing them, lay two pistols. They were served by only one footman, who went out to get the dishes, which were brought to him in the hallway; The door behind him was closed every time with the utmost care. When the prisoner passed through the yard, the black mask was always on his face. The peasants noticed that his lips and teeth were visible from under the mask and that he was tall and fair-haired... Saint-Mars slept on the bed that was prepared for him near the bed of the man in the mask. I have not heard any rumors regarding this person's foreign accent."
How nice it was to live in Palto! But poor Saint-Mars had to leave his palace and accompany the masked man to Paris. On September 18, at about three o'clock in the afternoon, a small motorcade arrived at the Bastille.
In the journal for registering prisoners, M. de Junca, the royal lieutenant, made the following entry:
“On the eighteenth of September, on Thursday, at three o’clock in the afternoon, M. de Saint-Map, commandant of the Bastille fortress, arrived to take office from the island of St. Margaret, bringing with him his long-time prisoner, held under his supervision back in Pinerol, who must wear a mask at all times and must not be named; he was placed, immediately upon arrival, in the first cell of the Basinier Tower until nightfall, and at nine o'clock in the evening I myself, together with M. de Rosarge, one of the sergeants brought with him by the commandant, transferred the prisoner to the third cell of the Bertollier Tower, prepared by me by order of M. de Saint-Mars, a few days before the arrival of the prisoner, who was entrusted to the care of M. de Rosarge, who is in the pay of M. Commandant.”
Each tower of the Bastille, in particular the Bertollier tower, consisted of six floors. On each floor there was an octagonal chamber with a fireplace, twelve paces wide, long and high, with a ceiling covered with plaster and a cement floor. Each chamber had stones with an exhaust hood and a small niche in the thickness of the wall for “personal use.”
Four years later M. du Junca was forced to open the Bastille register once more. A sad event happened: M. Saint-Mars lost his oldest prisoner.
M. du Junca recorded the following: “On the same day, 1703, November 19th, Monday, this unknown prisoner in a mask of black velvet, brought by M. de Saint-Mars from the island of St. Margaret and guarded by him for a long time, died at about ten o'clock in the evening after feeling a little unwell after mass the day before, but at the same time he was not seriously ill. M. Giraud, our priest, confessed him. Due to the suddenness of his death, our confessor performed the sacrament of confession literally at the last moment of his life; this long-guarded prisoner was buried in the parish cemetery of Saint-Paul; when registering the death, Mr. Rosarz, a doctor, and Mr. Rey, a surgeon, designated him by a certain name, also unknown.”
After some time, M. du Junca managed to find out under what name the prisoner was reported. Then he entered this name in the journal: “I learned that since Mr. de Marchiel was registered, 40 l have been paid. for burial."
The Saint-Paul registry actually listed Marchiali's name.
Obviously, it was just a pseudonym, an alien name intended to confuse the overly curious.
So, it is known that the masked man was a prisoner of Saint-Mars during the latter’s “reign” in Pinerol. When Saint-Mars left Pinerol in 1681, he had only five prisoners under his command, not counting Lauzun.
Therefore, one must look for the Mask among these five people. Here we are talking, as Maurice Duvivier said, “of arithmetic reasoning based on indisputable documents.”
Who were these prisoners? First of all, we must note the famous Lozun, bound by certain obligations with the princess and released in 1681, whom no one thought to consider the Iron Mask. Here are the remaining five: Estache Dauger, arrested in 1669; Jacobin monk, imprisoned April 7, 1674; a certain La Riviere; a spy named Dubruy, imprisoned in June 1676; Count Mattioli, envoy of the Duke of Mantua, arrested on May 2, 1679.
The Masked Man appeared on this list under one of these names.
Let's take a closer look at these prisoners. On July 19, 1669, Lovois informed Saint-Mars about the arrival of a prisoner in Pinerol: “Monsieur Saint-Mars! The Emperor ordered me to send a certain Eustache Dauger to Pinerol; when maintaining it, it seems extremely important to ensure careful security and, in addition, to ensure that the prisoner cannot transmit information about himself to anyone. I will notify you about this prisoner so that you prepare for him a reliably guarded solitary cell in such a way that no one can enter the place where he will be and that the doors of this cell are securely closed so that your sentries cannot do anything. hear. It is necessary that you yourself bring the prisoner everything he needs once a day and under no circumstances listen to him if he wants to say anything, threatening him with death if he opens his mouth to say anything, if only this will not apply to the expression of his requests. I inform M. Poupard that he is obliged to do everything you require; You will furnish the cell for the one they bring to you with everything necessary, taking into account that he is just a servant and he does not need any significant benefits ... "
What crime entailed such punishment? Louvois says nothing on this matter. So, this man was "just a servant," but no doubt he was involved in some serious business. He must have known some secrets that seemed so important to Louvois that no one, not even Saint-Mars, knew the true guilt of this man.
Doge was constantly in complete silence and absolute solitude. It was said of Pinerola that it was “the hell of all state prisons.” Fouquet and Lauzun were exceptions, which, however, confirm the rule. They had servants, they could read and write. Those who were imprisoned “in the darkness of the towers” had nothing similar.
Four years after the arrest, Doge Saint-Mars reported to Louvois: “As for the prisoner in the tower brought by M. de Voroy, he says nothing, looks quite happy, like a man who has completely surrendered to the will of the Lord and Sovereign.”
Meanwhile, Saint-Mars found himself faced with a delicate problem: M. Fouquet, the longest-serving and famous prisoner, could not manage without a servant. Meanwhile, the commandant could not find lackeys who would agree to become voluntary prisoners. Only two devoted people decided on this feat of asceticism: Champagne, but he died in 1674, and a certain La Riviere, but he was often sick. Saint-Mars found a way out: since Doget, according to Louvois, was a lackey, why shouldn’t he serve M. Fouquet? Louvois agreed. Fouquet was sentenced to life imprisonment. But in sending his consent, Louvois insisted that all measures be taken to ensure that Dauger never met Lauzun, since Lauzun would one day be released.
But fearing that Dauger would speak, the minister one day wrote personally to M. Fouquet, inquiring whether Dauger had betrayed his secret? The act was rather naive: could Fouquet answer such a question in the affirmative?
It is easy to imagine the confusion and anger of the commandant and minister when, after Fouquet’s death in 1680, a “hole” was discovered in his cell through which he communicated with Lauzun. Saint-Map was sure of the complicity in this of Doge and his comrade La Riviere, the old lackey of M. Fouquet.
Louvois ordered both. Doge and La Riviere were "confined into the same cell, so that you could answer before His Majesty for the fact that they could not communicate with anyone, either verbally or in writing."
So La Riviere - the lackey who selflessly joined Fouquet in Pinerol - became a state criminal.
Everything concerning the Doge was still kept in the strictest confidence. Meanwhile, he indulged in rather strange activities. In the correspondence between Saint-Mars and Louvois, the question of the “drugs” used by Doge was raised. Louvois wrote:
“Tell me how Estache Dauger did what you wrote about, and where he got the necessary drugs for this, assuming, of course, to take it on faith that it was not you who provided them to him.”
What “drugs” are we talking about? Unknown. The expressions in which Louvois speaks about Doge and La Riviera are worthy of attention: “The Emperor learned from your letter addressed to me, dated the 23rd of last month, about the death of M. Fouquet and about your judgment regarding the fact that M. Lauzun learned most of the important information that M. Fouquet had and which was known to La Riviere: in this regard, His Majesty ordered me to inform you that after you close the hole through which Mr. on Fouquet and M. Lauzun, moreover, in such a way that there is nothing else like this in this place, in this way you will eliminate the connection between the cell of the late Fouquet and the cell that you adapted for his daughter, after which you must, according to His Majesty’s plan, place Mr. -on Lauzun in the cell of the late M. Fouquet... It is also necessary that you convince M. Lauzun that Estache Doget and La Riviere have been released, and also that you answer this way to everyone who asks you about this; while you imprison both of them in one cell, and then you will be able to answer in the face of His Majesty for the fact that they will not be able to communicate with anyone, either verbally or in writing, and for the fact that Mr. Lozun will not be able to find out that they are kept there.”
In Louvois' mind, Lauzun, Dauger, La Riviere and the Fouquet mystery were closely linked. It was necessary to “convince” Lauzun that those who shared with him the knowledge of these secrets, Doge and La Riviere, were released.
Now let's turn to the stories of other prisoners. In April 1674, a Jacobin monk was brought to Pinerol. Louvois wrote about him to Saint-Mars as “a prisoner, although unknown, but important.” He had to be kept in “harsh conditions, no fire should be given to his cell unless severe cold or illness required it, he should not be given any other food except bread, wine and water, for he is a complete scoundrel who has not suffered deserved punishment. At that time, you can allow him to listen to the masses, making sure, however, that no one sees him and that he cannot tell anyone about himself. His Majesty also finds it quite possible to provide him with several prayer books.”
What did this monk do to be treated so harshly? In all likelihood, he abused the trust of Madame d'Armagnac and Madame de Württemberg, “significant persons,” by defrauding them of a tidy sum under the pretext of practicing alchemy. This was the same “Dominican, the likes of whom in France are called Jacobins.” Primi spoke about him Visconti, adding that he “claimed to discover the philosopher’s stone, and therefore all the ladies revolved around him... They said something about his long stay with Madame d’Armagnac, and he ended up being sent to prison as a deceiver.”
Madame de Montespan's hatred added fuel to the fire. Princess Marie of Württemberg was an important person at court. She was distinguished by rare beauty.
They said it was quite possible that the king had his eye on her. Madame de Montespan, overcome with envy, told the king that the princess was in an affair with a Dominican, i.e. with our Jacobin monk.
All these intrigues brought the unfortunate man to Pinerol. Louvois tried to forget him. In his correspondence there is not even a mention of a monk, while there is a lot of talk about the Doge. They started talking about the monk again only two years later, in 1676, when he went crazy.
Saint-Mars thought to cure him by ending his painful loneliness. Shortly before this, a certain Dubreuil was placed at his disposal, whom he placed with the monk.
Of the “five” we already know Doge, La Riviera, a Jacobin monk. Let us now turn to Dubreuil. Historian Jung has reconstructed his story: he was a French officer used as a spy and caught in treason. He has already been imprisoned in Bordeaux. After escaping from there in 1675, he settled in Bale under the name Samson. He offered the Comte de Montclar, commander of the Army of the Rhine, information regarding the strength and movements of the German troops of Montecuculli. Louvois agreed and even promised a “good reward.” Unfortunately for him, Dubreuil did not stop there: at the same time he offered the same services to Montecuculli. Quartermaster General Lagrange quickly exposed Dubreuil. Lagrange told Louvois: “I see no other way to arrest him than to keep an observer in Bale who would watch him until he is within reach, and then capture him.”
At the first opportunity, on April 28, the spy was detained and imprisoned in the Brizash fortress. A little later, Louvois gave the order to transfer him to Besançon, then to Lyon, from where the archbishop was to “send him to Pinerol, where he will be handed over to Saint-Mars for confinement in the donjon of the fortress.”
The minister notified Saint-Mars: “You can place him with the prisoner who was sent to you last (with the Jacobin monk). From time to time you should send me messages regarding him.”
Every time Louvois spoke to Dubreuil, his words carried a hint of contempt. The spy, he said, was “one of the biggest swindlers in the whole world”, “a man of destructive behavior”, “not a single word of whom cannot be trusted”, “who did not deserve to be treated attentively”. However, he can “listen to Mass with M. Fouquet or M. Lauzun” without taking special precautions.
In Pinerol, Dubreuil had no luck. Being placed in the same cell with a half-crazed Jacobin, it’s not surprising to go crazy yourself. He was delivered from this unpleasant neighborhood; the Jacobin monk was placed with Lauzun's footman. The monk tolerated this change so poorly that he was soon considered “mad.” He had to be tied up and “taken care of”: i.e. apply to him an extremely specific prison effective psychotherapeutic method - caning. He calmed down, but continued to be in some stupor.
In 1680, Saint-Mars called him “fallen into childhood and melancholy”; he was now placed with the prisoner who had arrived the year before - along with Mattioli - the last of the "five".
Why did this Italian end up in Pinerola? For a long time Louis XIV wanted to acquire the fortified Italian area around Casal, under the rule of the Duke of Mantua. The intermediary in these difficult trades was Count Hercule-Antoine Mattioli. An intriguer, a man with a tarnished reputation, primarily concerned with his own enrichment. In this matter, playing a double game, he betrayed both the Duke of Mantua and the King of France.
An ill-fated double play. You cannot deceive the Sun King with impunity. Mattioli had an appointment near Turin. Not suspecting anything, he arrived there and voluntarily boarded the carriage of the Abbé d'Estrada, the French ambassador to Venice. Not far from the French border, near a small hotel, a stop was made. Suddenly a platoon of cavalrymen surrounded the carriage.
Mattioli, no matter how much he shouted and was indignant, was captured and taken to Pinerol.
The arrest of an Italian minister on Italian soil is, as any historian would agree, a clear violation of human rights. Louvois, who authorized the arrest, and Katina, the executor, well understood their task: to carefully conceal this reprehensible fact. Katina wrote to Louvois:
“There was no cruelty involved; The name of this swindler is not known to anyone, not even to the officers who participated in his arrest...” And again: “I informed the Emperor about everything that I did with Mattioli, who is now listed under the name Lestan; no one here knows who he really is."
The instructions received by Saint-Mars reflect the king's anger towards the Italian. Louvois wrote that de Lestan must be treated with all severity. Several months of detention in Pinerola had the usual effect on Mattioli.
Saint-Mars - Louvois, January 6, 1680: “I will inform the Sovereign that M. de Lestan, following the example of the monk I keep, has gone crazy and is behaving inappropriately.”
Lunois - Saint-Mars, July 10, 1680: “Regarding M. de Lestand, I admire your patience and the fact that you are waiting for a special order in order to deal with a swindler who does not show you the respect he deserves.” deserves it."
Saint-Mars - Louvois, September 7, 1680: “Since I was allowed to place Mattioli with the Jacobin monk, the said Mattioli was for four or five days in the complete conviction that the monk was assigned to him to keep an eye on him. Mattioli, almost as crazy as the monk, walked around the cell with long strides, saying at the same time that I could not deceive him and that he understood everything perfectly. The Jacobin, always sitting on his wretched bed, leaning his elbows on his knees, looked at him without listening. Signor Mattioli, convinced that he was a spy, sobered up only when one fine day the monk, completely naked, finally got up from his bed and began to preach something, as always, without any sense. I and my lieutenants watched this through the hole above the door.”
At this time, Saint-Mars was appointed commandant of the Exile fortress, where a vacancy had arisen after the death of the Duke de Lediguières. “His Majesty,” wrote Louvois, “wants that the two prisoners at the disposal of Saint-Mars be transported to the place of his new assignment with the same vigilance that took place in Pinerol.”
Which of the “five” took advantage of the privilege, so to speak, of following M. de Saint-Mars? In another letter, Louvois notes that the prisoners who will accompany Saint-Mars are “sufficiently significant personalities not to be transferred to other hands.” However, he clarifies that these two are from the lower tower. In the lower tower there are, on one side, Mattioli and the mad Jacobin, and on the other side, Doge and La Riviere.
Which one is Iron Mask? Saint-Mars sheds light on this issue in his letter to Abbe d'Estrade dated June 25, 1681: “Only yesterday I received provisions and two million livres in salary from the governor of Exile. They leave me with two of my lieutenants; I will also take two types from here, who are referred to only as "the gentlemen of the lower tower". Mattioli will remain here with two other prisoners. Villebois, one of my lieutenants, will guard them."
Important information: Mattioli was not considered "significant enough" to accompany Saint-Mars." Subsequent letters from Louvois make it clear that Dubreuil, like Mattioli, remained in Pinerola. Therefore, the two "types" taken away by Saint-Mars are Dauger and La Rivière, the remaining "inhabitants of the lower tower".
The formidable Exile fortress was located not far from Pinerol, only some 12 leagues away. It overlooked the Dorian Valley, on a steep hill. As at Pinerol, a four-sided donjon with corner towers. One of the walls was called “Caesar's Tower”. There Saint-Mars decided to place La Riviera and Doge.
Louvois reminded Saint-Mars that "it was necessary to ensure that there was no communication between the prisoners at Exile, who were called in Pinerol the prisoners of the lower tower." It was necessary to “take all precautions so that you can guarantee His Majesty that they will not speak not only to any outsiders, but also to anyone from the garrison of Exil.” Saint-Mars reassured the minister: “No one speaks to them except me, my officer, the priest M. Vignon and the doctor from Pragelas (six hours’ drive from here), who communicates with them only in my presence.”
The required precautions became excessive when, in 1683, Louvois prohibited confession except in cases of “danger of imminent death.” This danger for one of the prisoners arose in 1686 as a result of dropsy. Saint-Mars reported his death to Louvois on January 5, 1687.
Who was this deceased - Doge or La Riviere? Saint-Mars doesn't say that.
As soon as the body was buried, Saint-Mars received the good news: the king entrusted him with the management of the islands of Saint Margaret. What joy after Exile, where the commandant was languishing in melancholy! Naturally, he was invariably accompanied by his, as he said, personal prisoners, as before - “significant”: “I gave such strict orders regarding the protection of my prisoner that I can answer for him with my own head, I even forbade my lieutenant to talk to the prisoner , which is strictly followed. I think that when moving to the St. Margaret's Islands it is better for the prisoner to sit on a chair with a dark cloth wrapped around it, so that he can have enough air, but he cannot talk to anyone during the journey, not even to the soldiers, whom I will choose to accompany him, and so that no one can see him; This method seems to me more reliable than a stretcher, which can tear.” On April 30, 1687, Saint-Map arrived in the Sainte-Marguerite Islands with his prisoner. Everything went well until the prisoner began to choke. He arrived on the island half dead. But the result was achieved: “I can assure you, Your Highness, that no one saw him, and the way in which I transported him to the islands led to everyone trying to guess who my prisoner could be...”
Here you can see the origins of the legend. Excessive precaution, in the eyes of the public, emphasized the importance of the prisoner. It is likely that this importance may have been exaggerated. Saint-Mars emphasized this fact in his communications after Eustache-Dauger's arrival in Pinerol. He wrote: “Many here believe that this is the Marshal of France ...” In April 1670 from Pinerol about the same Doge: “There are too curious people who ask me about my prisoner as to why I take such strict measures to ensure security , in response to this I have to invent all sorts of fables, partly in order to laugh at the curious.”
After only nine months on the islands of St. Margaret, Saint-Mars could tell Louvois: “In this whole province they say that my prisoner is M. de Beaufort, the rest consider him the son of the late Cromwell.”
Until 1690, the long-time prisoner of Exile was the only prisoner on the island.
Then Protestant priests, victims of the repeal of the Edict of Nantes, became his neighbors. One of them was constantly writing something on everything possible: walls, linen, dishes. Thanks to this, no doubt, the anecdote was born about a silver dish found by a fisherman, on which the Iron Mask revealed the secret of his origin.
Louvois died in 1691. His son, Barbezier, took his place. And already a month after the death of his father, Barbezier wrote to Saint-Mars, and his first instructions concerned the same prisoner... Moreover, this message contains one clarification that allows us to establish the identity of this prisoner: “When will you have something to tell me regarding the prisoner whom You have been guarding for more than twenty years, I ask you to take the same precautions that you took under M. Louvois.”
“The prisoner you have been guarding for more than twenty years”: this phrase can in no way be attributed to La Riviere. And Dauger, arrested in July 1669, had already been in prison for twenty-two years.
The only possible conclusion is that the man who died in Exile was La Riviere. And the man brought to the islands of St. Margaret under a dark veil was Doge. Doge is the only prisoner whom Saint-Mars has not left since Pinerol. The only one who was considered “significant enough” not to be released even for a moment from the supervision of the royal jailers.
The only one that Barbezier took up immediately after coming to power.
In 1694, the peace of the island was disturbed by the arrival of persons without whom Saint-Mars could no longer live: the jailer often becomes attached to his prisoners. Barbézier decided that the prisoners remaining in Pinerol should be transported to the islands. In January of the same year, one of the oldest prisoners of Pinerol - a monk - died. The two survivors, Dubreuil and Mattioli (the latter accompanied by a servant) joined the Venerable M. de Saint-Mars.
Barbezier, as was his custom, provided the jailer with detailed instructions. The transfer was entrusted to M. de Laprade: since “it is undesirable to leave Pinerol before the guards arrive there and, in addition, the prisoners must be transported one by one, it is necessary that you ensure the rapid dispatch of the guards and prepare a suitable place where you place the prisoners on arrival; for you know that these are more important prisoners, at least one of them, than those already on the island. You must place them in the most secure places of detention."
So the circle narrows. There remain only three candidates for the “title” of “Iron Mask”: Doger, Mattioli and Dubreuil. All three ended up together on the island of St. Margaret in April 1694. Which of them was the Man in the Iron Mask?
At the end of April 1694, an unexpected event occurred on the island: one of the prisoners died. And we don't know which one.
In addition to the designated trinity, under the protection of Saint-Mars were:
1. Chevalier de Tezu (or Chezu), about whom we know nothing.
2. Other prisoners, the number of which remains unknown, among them were three or four Protestant priests.
Did any of them die? Or were they the “old ones” from Pinerol? How to find out?
Barbezier, in a letter dated May 10, provides important information on this matter: “I received,” he writes to Saint-Mars, “your letter dated the 29th of last month; You may carry out your proposal and place in the vaulted prison the footman of the deceased prisoner, ensuring that he is guarded as well as others, preventing his communication, oral or written, with anyone.”
Mr. Georges Mongredien, author of a wonderful book on the Iron Mask, one of the latest and most objective, emphasizes that the presence of a footman is an exclusive privilege, which was enjoyed only by high-born prisoners. In Pinerol it was Fouquet and Losun. Count Mattioli, minister of the Duke of Mantua, also enjoyed this privilege, the only one of the three survivors of Pinerola. Saint-Mars, conveying to Barbézier the daily routine of his prisoners, wrote, in particular, about his “long-time prisoner” Doge; he did not face the problem of a servant; his life was described in frightening detail.
“The first of my lieutenants takes the keys to my old prisoner’s cell and, opening three doors, enters the prisoner’s cell, he hands over to him with due respect the dishes and plates, which he himself first places on top of each other, after passing through two doors, he gives them to my sergeant , and he, in turn, takes them to a table standing two steps away, where the second lieutenant, who checks everything that is brought in and taken out of the prison, looks to see if anything is written on the dishes; after he had been given everything he needed, his cell was searched under the bed and on the bed, then near the window bars and throughout the cell, after which he was asked if he needed anything else, after which the door was locked, and the same procedure was carried out with “all other prisoners.”
It is clear that with such a statement of affairs there is no place left for the servant. And anyway, could it have been with Doge, who himself used to be Fouquet’s servant? Obviously, Dubreuil, a petty spy despised by Louvois, also did not enjoy such a privilege.
If only Dauger, Dubreuil and Mattioli were on the island of St. Margaret at that time, it would be possible to say with confidence that the prisoner who died in April 1694 was an Italian - the only one of the three who was allowed to use the services of a footman.
But there were other prisoners on the island. Is it possible that one of them has a servant at his disposal? Unlikely. But the historian cannot be satisfied with probabilities. So, it is impossible to categorically say that Mattioli died in April 1694...
When Saint-Mars went to the Bastille in 1698, he was accompanied, as we remember, by his “old prisoner,” whom “no one should have seen!” We also remember that it was then that Saint-Mars came up with a delightful idea for a mask - an idea with such an enviable future.
After which the Masked Man, entering the Bastille, went down in history. Who? Mattioli, Doge or Dubreuil?
Dubreuil is nothing more than a petty spy. Having arrested him, Louvois did not deign to deal with him anymore, nor did Barbezier. The ministers constantly asked Saint-Mars about Fouquet, Lauzun, Mattioli or Doge. Dubreuil's name never appeared in their letters. Only once, after Lieutenant Villebois complained about his behavior, Louvois answered him with the following, rather cheeky lines:
“I received your letter dated the 10th of this month, from which I learned what this Dubreuil is worth to you. If he continues to rage, treat him like a madman, in other words, shake him properly, and you will see that this will restore him to common sense.
It seems that even with all the impartiality of the approach, Dubreuil’s candidacy cannot be claimed as suitable. Doge and Mattioli remain. Mattioli's candidacy has ardent and zealous supporters. The most eloquent of them is Franz Funk-Brentano. What are the arguments of the “Matthiolists”?
First of all, they take into account that their “challenger” was a figure of quite significant magnitude. While Dauger was merely a "lackey" and Dubreuil a "petty spy", Mattioli's imprisonment was "an act which, in the interests of state, had to be kept secret".
Then, Mattioli's supporters recall a detail from Barbezier's letter regarding the transfer in 1694 of the last Pinerol prisoners to the island of St. Margaret: "These are more important prisoners, at least some of them, than those already on the island." This “more important” prisoner could only be Mattioli.
In addition, it was after Mattioli’s arrival on the island of St. Margaret that the wording appears in the correspondence: “my long-time prisoner,” “your given prisoner.” According to the “Mattiolists”, these formulations allow us to assert that they are talking about a prisoner who was once held by Saint-Mars in Pinerola and was subsequently again transferred under his vigilant control - Mattioli.
When the Masked Man died, the deceased was recorded under the name Marziali or Marscioli. Here you can see a hint of the somewhat distorted name Mattioli.
Finally, Madame Campan, Marie Antoinette's maid, reported that Louis XIV told the queen in the presence of Madame Campan that the Masked Man was “simply a prisoner of a disconcerting character for his tendency to intrigue; subject of the Duke of Mantua." It is also known from intercepted correspondence that Louis XIV told Madame Pompadour the same thing; the king, under the onslaught of endless questions, replied that “it was one of the ministers of the Italian prince.”
These are the arguments of the “Mattiolists”. At first glance, they seem quite reasonable. But if you study them objectively, you will be surprised how so many people could accept such unconvincing evidence on faith.
In order to reject Mattioli’s candidacy, it would be enough just that Mattioli’s story at one time was not a secret to anyone.
Betrayal, arrest, imprisonment - Dutch newspapers spread this story throughout Europe. Moreover, the enemies of France - the Spaniards and the Savoyards - published a story about his activities and arrest in order to sway public opinion in favor of Mattioli.
However, Mr. de Poppon, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, after the arrest of the Italian, wrote to Abbot d'Estrada: “It is necessary that no one finds out what happened to this man.” From this phrase, the “Mattiolists” made far-reaching conclusions. But we note that this wording does not contain anything exceptional. Jung, looking through Louvois's correspondence, discovered that similar expressions were used in relation to other state prisoners quite often: “... make sure that no one knows what happened to him...”, “no one knows about this man should know" and the like.
When Barbézier took his father's place in 1691, the first thing he did was inquire about a prisoner who had been kept under the guard of Saint-Mars "for more than twenty years."
It could not have been Mattioli, for he was imprisoned in 1679, i.e. twelve years earlier. The difference is too great to be considered an oversight by Barbezier.
After 1693, the name Mattioli disappeared from correspondence. Ten years later he was again mentioned in correspondence under his own name, and this is proof that his name was no longer kept secret. It is not clear why it was necessary to call him a “long-time prisoner” in some cases. It seems likely that Mattioli died in April 1694. The fact that he had a servant confirms this assumption.
The name Marziali, indicated in the death certificate, can hardly serve as an argument in favor of Mattioli; rather, on the contrary, this fact confirms the opposite assumption. Why keep the identity of a prisoner secret for so long and so carefully in order to reveal his name to the curate for entering in the death register? There was a rule to bury important state prisoners under false names. Saint-Mars named the prisoner Marziali precisely because he was not Mattioli. It is likely that the name of his former prisoner who died on the island of St. Margaret came to his mind.
Let's return to our “arithmetic reasoning”. We have excluded five from the number: La Riviera, who died in 1687 at Exile; Jacobin monk who died in Pinerola in 1694; Mattioli, in all likelihood, died on the island of St. Margaret in the same 1694; Dubreuil, a spy, an insignificant figure, whom Saint-Mars no doubt left at Pierre-en-Cize, in Lyon, in 1697.
The conclusion suggests itself: the Iron Mask was Estache Doge.
Everything fits together. Extraordinary precautions, exceptional measures taken by order of Louvois during the arrest of a prisoner. The intensification of these measures coincided with the news that Dauger had learned some of Fouquet's secrets, as well as the fact that Dauger never left Saint-Mars. Louvois was so busy with Doge that it seemed necessary to him that a prisoner of such importance and La Rivière, who was following his fate willy-nilly, should be transferred to Saint-Mars' new destination - to Exile.
Mattioli could have stayed in Pinerola.
Before leaving for Exile, Louvois asked Saint-Mars to give a detailed account of his prisoners, indicating "what you know regarding the reasons for their detention." But this order did not apply to two prisoners from the “lower tower” - Doge and La Riviera. Their case was so well known to Louvois that he did not need any information: “As for the two from the lower tower, you write only their names, without adding anything else.”
Let us also recall that Louvois expressed himself quite clearly: only Lauzun and La Rivière, as he wrote to Saint-Mars, were “sufficiently significant figures not to transfer them into other hands.”
The measures taken during the transport to Exile and on the way from Exile to the island of St. Margaret for Doge are a logical continuation of those taken in Pinerol. Thus, it was forbidden for everyone except Saint-Mars to talk to the prisoners, and therefore Doge was mistaken for a marshal or “the one above”, and the governor was forced to invent “fables” regarding Doge. In Exile, Saint-Mars was careful not to change anything. Even his lieutenant did not have the right to speak with the prisoner, “which was carried out strictly.”
The chair covered with dark matter on the journey from Exile to St. Margaret's Island was intended to prevent "anyone from seeing or speaking to him on the road."
When Barbézier first wrote to Saint-Mars, his letter concerned “a prisoner who has been under your supervision for more than twenty years.” Undoubtedly, it was about the Doge. It was the Doge that was the first thought of the new minister.
This easily explains the phrase “your old prisoner.” The old prisoner is exactly the man whom Saint-Mars guarded for more than twenty years.
The legend of the Man in the Mask could acquire new details only in connection with Doge. Let us also not forget the remarkable phrase of Saint-Mars, dated early 1688, when Dauger was the only one of the “five” who was on the island of St. Margaret, when there were still six years left before Mattioli moved to the island: “Throughout the whole province they say that my the prisoner is M. de Beaufort, the others consider him the son of the late Cromwell.”
Since we know that Dauger could not have been the prisoner who died in 1694 - he did not have a servant - there is no doubt that it was he who accompanied Saint-Mars to his new destination - the Bastille.
And once again Saint-Mars was given the same instructions as had always been done in relation to Doge - only Doge: “... in order to transport our old prisoner to the Bastille, you will take all measures to ensure that no one sees or recognizes him.”
When Dauger died in the Bastille in 1703, he had already been imprisoned for thirty-four years.
It is not known what crime Doge committed. Of course, it must have been serious in order to entail harsh treatment and painful isolation for so many years... This unknown crime made Dauger a significant person. It made him the Masked Man.
It must also be emphasized that Dauger's guilt increased during his imprisonment, when he accidentally became privy to the secrets of Fouquet. Let us also recall the confession of Chamillard, about whom Voltaire spoke: “He was a man who owned all the secrets of Fouquet.”
Mr. Mongredien established that during the transport of the prisoner to the Bastille, Lauzun, Madame Fouquet and her children were still alive. This may well explain the “need” that did not leave the minister alone, “despite the fact that a lot of time had passed, to hide the identity of Doge, whom Lozun considered to have long disappeared.”
Maurice Duvivier identifies Eustache Doget in his book with a certain Eustache d'Auger de Cavoye, a dubious personality. After participating in the famous Roissy brawl, he was involved in a case involving poisons. Since he played as a child with Louis XIV, the king did not bring him to justice and personally sentenced him to life imprisonment. The “drugs” that so amazed Saint-Mars, according to Duvivier, prove that he could poison Fouquet, perhaps at the instigation of Colbert. It was necessary that he take the secret of his new crime with him to the grave Hence the need to not let him out from under vigilant supervision until his death, hence the mask.
Duvivier's version is quite solid, but from a historian's point of view, it is just a version.
The reason for the imprisonment of the Man in the Iron Mask - even if it was Estache Doger - still remains a mystery. Was there another person hiding under this name? We don't know this. In any case, he was not the brother of Louis XIV. The Sun King would never have allowed a man of the same blood to be made Fouquet's lackey!
