![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahnMore diaries of our favorite 18th-century Prussian diary-keeper have been unearthed and have been synopsized!
January 18th: Blessed be thou to me! Under your light, my Prince Heinrich was born!
January 18th: Blessed be thou to me! Under your light, my Prince Heinrich was born!
The Man in the Iron Mask
Date: 2022-07-30 05:26 pm (UTC)Now, I osmosed from pop culture that we didn't know who the Man in the Iron Mask was, so I was very surprised to see Horowski making definitive statements, but he seems to have documentary evidence on his side. And I don't think we've talked about this episode, so here's my write-up.
Obligatory Fritzian Connection
Reminder that Fritz and Wilhelmine were (Wo)Man in the Iron Mask geeks:
On a more fun note, my checking out individual letters from Wilhelmine's France & Italy travel correspondance years post reconciliation let me discover that she and Fritz were "Who was the Man in the Iron Mask?" geeks. So when she's travelling along the Cote d'Azure (having lunch in "a little town named Cannes"), she's visiting the Island St. Marguerite where the Man in the Iron Mask was supposedly kept, visits his cell and interviews people who swear their parents interacted with him. And gets this bit of sensational news: "(Feri) and others who saw him say that they believe it was a woman, that he had tiny and smallboned hands, and that the skin was very smooth and soft, despite being a bit bronze." The woman in the Iron Mask! That's a new one for me. Wilhelmine finishes her interview report to Fritz by saying the common most featured theories are that it was either the Comte de Vermandois (illegitimate son of Henri IV, i.e. Louis XIV bastard uncle, literally) or "the first Dauphine", by which she means this lady.
Who was the Man in the Iron Mask?
Horowski: The Man in the Iron Mask was a servant named Eustache Danger. Or Eustache who came from the French city Angers (i.e. d'Angers), because it's the 17th century and what is spelling and who cares about servant names, anyway?
Horowski: Certainly not historians, who called him Eustache Dauger for a long time.
Mildred: Wikipedia still calls him that, where it says "Eustache Dauger" was a pseudonym for who-knows-what real name.
Crime and Punishment
Eustache was involved in the top secret Treaty of Dover between Charles II and Louis XIV in 1670.
I'll repeat Selena's write-up about said treaty:
Charles' favourite sister Minette, married to Louis' brother Philippe the Gay to their mutual misery, was kind of C2's unofficial ambassador at Versailles. (There were official English envoys, of course, but Minette has the one entrusted with the very very secret thing about to unfold.) So Minette brokered the Treaty of Dover, the official part of which was a mutual aid and assistance contract where Charles promised to side with Louis against the Dutch. (Whom he'd been warring with unsuccesfully before but then had reconciled with, not least because his nephew William of Orange (the most famous to hold that name, the future King of England) had come of age and was rapidly turning into a thorn in Louis' side (as in, no more willing to let Louis run rampant over the Netherlands than his regents had been). The unofficial, secret part of the Treaty of Dover was that in exchange of a considerable yearly pension from Louis, Charles promised to convert to Catholicism "if the state of the Kingdom permitted it" and if the expected uproar would happen would accept Louis' troops to help quell said uproar in England. As it happened, Charles converted about five minutes before he died, after years and years of cash from Louis without converting or making the slightest move to do so, thereby technically fulfilling his promise but as to whether he meant it... BTW, since his subjects couldn't be sure he'd do this, of course had this treaty been known to the public there'd been Civil War, Part II. It was an incredible risky thing to do. (And a reason why this additional clause to the Treaty of Dover was so super secret, not just on the English but also on the French side. Minette and Louis knew, but Philippe did not. (And did majorly resent his wife being sent on diplomatic missions to England anyway.)) However, it did pay off for Charles, not just in terms of having more cash, but having more independence from Parliament.
To repeat: EXTREMELY SECRET Treaty of Dover.
We don't know what Eustache did, exactly, but we know he could read and write, and we know that he "had seen something he shouldn't have seen," and we know he got locked up immediately after a flurry of secret letters went back and forth between Minette and Charles and some disappeared.
Conclusion presented by Horowski: Eustache probably stole or copied one or more of these letters for the unknown person he worked for.
Eustache is Not a Royal (No, Really)
Now, how do we know Eustache was actually a servant and not a secret half-brother of Louis XIV or even a nobleman? Well, when he's locked up, he ends up waiting on another prisoner. And while Ancien Regime France was happy to lock you up for life or murder you brutally, the one thing they WOULD NOT DO was force someone highborn to act as a SERVANT, omg, can you IMAGINE. The degradation! It would endanger the foundation on which society was built!
Therefore: Eustache Danger = born into the servant class.
Horowski also makes a snarky comment that when Eustache's new master Fouquet (more on him below) believes it's very important to teach servants to read, both because he himself is losing his eyesight and because being able to read is important! Eustache might have harbored some private skepticism, since if he'd been illiterate like the other servant before Fouquet got a hold of him, he wouldn't have ended up in prison in the first place!
A valid point.
Cast of Characters
So why all the mystery about Eustache? Well, that's a long story, but as Horowski says in this chapter:
Prisoner 1: So how did you end up here, Prisoner 2?
Prisoner 2: It's kind of a long story.
Prisoner 1: Well, you know, we really have a lot of time.
Prisoner 1 is Fouquet, disgraced top minister of Louis XIV and current master of Eustache (who does not yet wear a mask).
Prisoner 2 is the Comte (future Duc) de Lauzun, whose life story is its WHOLE own thing, but we'll just say for now that he was a courtier with a sense of adventure, and we may talk more about his life and adventures at some point.
Fouquet and Lauzun are both locked up in the fortress of Pignerol, which is near the border between France and Savoy. Fouquet and Lauzun are not supposed to meet, in part because Fouquet's servant is Eustache, and Eustache has this secret that Lauzun isn't supposed to know. But Lauzun bores a hole in his fireplace and sneaks into Fouquet's room, and they chat and get to know each other.
Meanwhile, Saint-Mars is the governor of the prison, who has to deal with things like:
1. Lauzun breaking out before getting caught, meaning Saint-Mars now has to get up in the middle of every night to check all prisoners are in place before the gates are opened for commerce at dawn.
2. The French gov't getting word of Lauzun meeting Fouquet and the "Shit! Shit! Emergency coverup time!" reaction.
3. Being stuck in the middle of nowhere, because D'Artagnan*, head of the Musketeers, got the honor of escorting prime minister Fouquet to prison, but he got to delegate actually staying there and minding him to Saint-Mars, while D'Artagnan went back to Paris, the happening place.
* Yes, that D'Artagnan, although Dumas heavily fictionalized his story.
In conclusion, Saint-Mars is not happy with his job. This will become a plot point later.
Keeping Secrets
So why does Fouquet get to talk to Eustache and learn his secret, while Lauzun doesn't? Because the government can tell Fouquet he'd better keep that secret to himself, or he's not getting out of prison.
Lauzun, on the other hand, is getting out no matter what, because he has a big inheritance coming his way that Louis wants for his illegitimate son, and Lauzun won't agree to sign it over. This is a WHOLE other story of its own, but the point that Horowski makes is that the Ancien Regime might deprive you of your liberty with the wave of a royal hand, but they couldn't deprive you of your property so easily, since one threatened only the less important individual liberties, and the other threatened the welfare of the all-important clan.
So when Lauzun gets wind of Eustache's secret, now it's coverup time. Once Lauzun and Fouquet get more freedom, Eustache gets moved into hiding and Lauzun is told that he's been set free. This is meant to convince Lauzun by implication that Eustache's secret is either not important or totally made up by him, as an indirect way of getting Lauzun not to talk about it once he goes free.
Then he and Fouquet are released. Notice that Louis is more willing to take the risk of letting word of the Treaty of Dover get out than he is to lose that inheritance for his illegitimate son (the Duc du Maine) by Madame Montespan.
Changing Political Winds
In 1685, Charles II dies, having converted on his deathbed, and the Treaty of Dover is pretty irrelevant. Three years later, William III invades and James II is overthrown and it's really irrelevant.
So Eustache should really be free to go now. There's nothing more for the French or English to hide.
Saint-Mars and the Quest for Job Satisfaction
But! Remember that Saint-Mars, governor of the prison, is stuck in Pignerol in the middle of nowhere, with no prospect of advancing his career. And now that Fouquet and Lauzun are gone, Saint-Mars doesn't even have any important prisoners to add to his prestige.
But he has one important advantage. It's been 20 years, and everyone who knew or cared about who Eustache is or why he's in prison is either dead or gone. So Saint-Mars can tell people whatever he wants.
In order to make it look like he's got charge of this really important prisoner with a really sensitive secret, Saint-Mars starts treating Eustache deferentially. He also steps up the security measures, acting like it's life or death if anyone finds out who the prisoner is.
When he gets an order to move to another prison (this is the island off the coast of Provence that Wilhelmine visited), Saint-Mars has Eustache transported in a hermetically sealed chair, accompanied by an escort of guards, and treated like a prince. Saint-Mars keeps emphasizing to all and sundry on the journey, in all the villages and towns they pass through, that it is of the utmost importance that no one ever identify the prisoner.
Rumors start flying. People claim to have been eyewitnesses to Saint-Mars helping a man with a steel mask out of the chair.
Horowski: If there was an metal mask at all, and this wasn't just a game of telephones ("stille Post" in German, as I learned), then this was the only time he wore it. The mask that Saint-Mars made him wear for the rest of his life was a black velvet mask, such as was fashionable at court to protect your complexion.
Upon arrival, Saint-Mars promptly has half the prison rebuilt to be worthy of its new prisoner, whom he addresses as "my prince."
After he's built up enough hype, Saint-Mars switches from extreme security measures to personally escorting visitors to come stare at the man in the (black velvet) mask, who is now a tourist attraction.
Move to the Bastille
Then one day, Saint-Mars gets an unexpected reprieve from life in the provinces: he gets appointed governor of the Bastille. Return to Paris!
But now that he's built up his entire life around Eustache, an annoyed Saint-Mars has to write back,
"But it's EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that I bring my EXTREMELY IMPORTANT prisoner with me, right??"
The authorities in Paris, who have long since forgotten all about poor Eustache: "Sure, bring whatever prisoners you see fit."
So of course Saint-Mars makes a *big production* of the entry of Eustache into the Bastille, and continues addressing him as "my prince" in front of witnesses.
Eustache Danger (or d'Angers) dies there, in 1703, leaving life and entering into legend.
Pignerol Coda
Horowski adds that Pignerol, the prison on the Savoy border where most of the action of this chapter took place, was ripped down by Louis XIV so that not one stone stood on another. Why? Because in one of the many peace treaties, Victor Amadeus was granted this territory. But since you could set your watch by his side-switching*, Louis didn't want any of the important fortresses in VA's hands the next time Savoy ended up at war with France again, so he had all the fortresses, including Pignerol, torn down before handing over the territory to VA.
* Horowski's phrasing and part of the reason I just had to read up on VA.
And this is the story of how all the mystery and hype around the Man in the Iron Mask and whether Louis XIV was really the legitimate heir was apparently because...Saint-Mars was bored.
Re: The Man in the Iron Mask
Date: 2022-07-31 10:44 am (UTC)Heh. This is the kind of thing that would never happen in fiction!
Re: The Man in the Iron Mask
Date: 2022-07-31 02:22 pm (UTC)And while Ancien Regime France was happy to lock you up for life or murder you brutally, the one thing they WOULD NOT DO was force someone highborn to act as a SERVANT, omg, can you IMAGINE. The degradation! It would endanger the foundation on which society was built!
See, this I also completely believe. It's so very ancien regime. (Well, unless we're talking FW. FW I think would have been entirely capable to let one of his kids or a noble he was enraged with perform servant-like services for a while to make a point.) Still: if Eustache saw the Secret Treaty of Dover - which I agree was at the time something both Louis and Charles would have done almost anything to keep secret - why the hell wasn't Eustache simply killed? If not via murder, then due to a trumped up charge for another matter?
This is what happens to a main character of the Angelique novels right in the first volume. Angelique, our heroine, as a kid comes across evidence that several nobles involved in the Fronde -the uprising against Mazarin and Queen Anne when future Sun King Louis was still a child - want to poison Louis and brother Philippe the future Gay so that Uncle Gaston the eternal schemer becomes King. She hides it. As an adult woman, she married Joffrey, the Comte de Peyrac, her first great love and a passionate free thinker. The former conspirators figure out she still has that old evidence, only now Louis is adult and could do very harmful things to them if it comes to light, so Joffrey as her husband gets accused of being a sorceror and has a witch trial against him. Louis, who isn't keen on Joffrey because Joffrey is an independent minded peer not bothering to pay court at Versailles and because he's paranoid about independent minded nobles due to his childhood, okays this somewhat ridiculous charge for his own reasons. The trial goes ahead, Joffrey despite our heroine's best endeavours to save her husband gets burned (not really, but we don't find that out until a later novel), his property gets confiscated, and she ends up in the streets for a while. These were among the earliest historical novels I've read, I imprinted on them, and so I really have to ask: if Eustache knew about the Treaty of Dover, why then neither a death sentence on a trumped up charge (if it was good enough for Joffrey de Peyrac...) or plain old murder?
On the non existing third hand, I do love the idea that the whole tale came about because of a bored official. Not least because one of the 20th century's most popular conspiracy theories, the Paul Is Dead craze, came about because of a bored DJ who made it up, and never could take it back once it caught on.
Re: The Man in the Iron Mask
Date: 2022-07-31 06:40 pm (UTC)I had the same thought, but I remembered that even during the worst days of the Küstrin imprisonment, Fritz had a servant. The servant wasn't allowed to sleep in the same room with him, and they weren't allowed to talk, but he had a guy to shave him and carry his waste away. Thus proving that even Wretched Son fit into the class structure!
(Also,
if Eustache saw the Secret Treaty of Dover - which I agree was at the time something both Louis and Charles would have done almost anything to keep secret - why the hell wasn't Eustache simply killed? If not via murder, then due to a trumped up charge for another matter?
Horowski doesn't really have a good answer for this. After talking at length about how brutal the Ancien Regime was and how Louis could totally have killed Danger if he wanted, he says that it says a lot for the Ancien Regime that he didn't, and that killing a relatively innocent (!) defenseless person would have been a blameworthy excess, so Danger ended up in prison.
But as you point out, that's not really a rock-solid case.
Maybe they just needed more servants in prison? Horowski says it was hard to get good help with volunteers, since serving a noble in a prison like Pignerol basically meant being imprisoned yourself. (A bit different situation from Küstrin.)
On the non existing third hand, I do love the idea that the whole tale came about because of a bored official.
I knoooow, it's my favorite part! I gave my wife a very abbreviated account of this story, and we agreed the "bored official" version is a much better story from a modern perspective than "half-brother of Louis" or whatever. It's just so unexpected!
Re: The Man in the Iron Mask
Date: 2022-08-01 06:16 am (UTC)(Also more likely than all the secret relations, because the birth of Louis XIV had been so long awaited and was an event with so many people in addition to Anne in the room that disguising the arrival of a twin brother would have been impossible, and for Anne as Regent later to hide a pregnancy and birth when her nobility was watching her every step and gossipping about her relations with Mazarin anyway would have been near impossible as well. AS for Louis XIII, of all the people, agreeing to a secret bio dad to impregnate his wife, where do I even start? Not to mention that both Louis and Philippe show their share of the dark Medici coloring inherited from Louis XIII - their (Habsburg) mother Anne was a blonde - , and you can see some resembmlance to cousin Charles II in the portraits.)
However....
Horowski doesn't really have a good answer for this. After talking at length about how brutal the Ancien Regime was and how Louis could totally have killed Danger if he wanted, he says that it says a lot for the Ancien Regime that he didn't, and that killing a relatively innocent (!) defenseless person would have been a blameworthy excess, so Danger ended up in prison.
Yeah, no. I mean. I don't think Le Roi Soleil was the worst or most ruthless French King ever, but do I think he'd have balked at getting (lethally) rid of a (spying) servant to protect the secrecy of the Treaty of Dover? No way.
Otoh, how's this for an explanation: Eustache was a servant of Minette's whom she really liked and she pleaded for his life. Both Louis and Charles would have granted that wish because of their emotional connection to her, while Louis would still wanted to ensure Eustache kept his mouth shut from now on.
There's just one fly in an otherwise perfect ointment: if Eustache saw the treaty of Dover, you'd think Saint Mars would have been ordered to keep him away from ambitious nobles like Fouquet and Lauzun, even if at the time Fouquet was not supposed to be released again. After all, Fouquet as far as I know was allowed to write letters.
Re: The Man in the Iron Mask
Date: 2022-08-01 08:14 pm (UTC)I think she was!
AS for Louis XIII, of all the people, agreeing to a secret bio dad to impregnate his wife, where do I even start?
Louis: What do you think this is, Sweden?
:P
(Lest we forget the Finnish sex machine. ;))
[ETA:
I don't think Le Roi Soleil was the worst or most ruthless French King ever
Who was the most ruthless French King ever, do you think? Of the ones I personally know something about, Louis XI comes to mind, but I have way too many gaps in my knowledge to be able to say.
Eustache was a servant of Minette's whom she really liked and she pleaded for his life.
Ooh, could be! I like your reasoning.
After all, Fouquet as far as I know was allowed to write letters.
Horowski says Fouquet was "occasionally" allowed a letter to his family, after promising not to talk about anything he had learned in prison (i.e. Eustache's secret), but even so, his letters would have been censored first, surely? Censorship of letters was pretty common in France.
Besides, if Eustache has any secret at all, we still have to account for why he was allowed to talk to Fouquet, regardless of what the secret is.
Re: The Man in the Iron Mask
Date: 2022-08-02 03:51 pm (UTC)[ETA: [personal profile] luzula, if you're following along, context is here, tell us if you've heard this story before!)
Ha ha, no, I had not! Thanks for sharing, that's great. : D
But my eye was caught by this, because WHAT?
Gustav IV Adolf *in exile*: So, I'm not good enough because I'm possibly the son of a Finnish sex machine, but a French commoner who has "death to kings" tattooed on his arm is?
I mean, obviously I know about Bernadotte, but I did NOT know that he had "death to kings" tattooed on his arm? Awesome, if true. But do you have a source for this? I found a Swedish site saying that this is a myth, and that it arose from the 1833 play Le Camarade de lit, where this happens:
... The ex-grenadier reminds the King that he had once tattooed his arm with gunpowder. Carried away by old associations the King pulls up his sleeve and displays the indelible imprint of a Phrygian Cap and of a revolutionary motto, which is said to have been Mort aux Rois. The disclosure of this secret is the turning-point of the piece. The King is placed in such a dilemma by this compromising discovery that, in order to save himself from the necessity of abdication, he is compelled to give his consent to the marriage of the hero and the heroine, thus bringing the curtain down upon a happy ending to the play.
The same site does say that he said in a 1797 letter that he is a republican by principle and would fight royalists to his dying day, but only has a second-hand source for it that I can't access.
Re: The Man in the Iron Mask
Date: 2022-08-02 04:24 pm (UTC)I also wrote an emojii version of the Swedish Scandal for Mildred, which got reposted here:
https://rheinsberg.dreamwidth.org/33616.html#cutid1
Re: The Man in the Iron Mask
Date: 2022-08-02 04:59 am (UTC)Ohhhh, I like that a lot.
Re: The Man in the Iron Mask
Date: 2022-08-04 05:58 pm (UTC)Using this as a jumping off point for a loosely related quote I wanted to share.
Context: William III is invading England. James II is trying to smuggle his wife (Mary of Modena) and kid (James Francis Edward Stuart aka future "James III" to Jacobites aka "the warming pan baby" to his enemies) to safety in France. Italian guy Riva and French guy Lauzun (yes, that one) are helping doing the smuggling. The entire chapter so far has been about how cold and wet and miserable it is (London in December in the Little Ice Age), as well as stressful trying not to get caught.
Finally, they get to an inn where they meet up with their co-conspirators. Horowski writes:
Riva was almost in tears as he said that the good king had thought to provide him not only with a horse but an extra pair of riding boots. From Lauzun's perspective, on the other hand, it was just like James II to have nothing better to do at a time like this. Since James's cousin Louis XIV of an entirely different caliber. He went walking in the rain, while being the only one allowed to wear a hat, because of his rank, and he asked his companions if it wasn't unpleasant, having to go without a hat in the rain. And precisely because of that attitude, France was now the greatest power in Europe.
*eg* Horowski continues to be readable the second time around too.
The Man in the Iron Mask book is also interesting and contains some more details. I'll try to do a write-up after I finish it.
Three Musketeers
Date: 2022-08-05 04:07 am (UTC)So as you all know it takes me forever to get to books, but I did say I should read the Three Musketeers one of these days, and apparently this week is it? I'm about a quarter of the way through, and it is great fun. I'd forgotten how hilarious Dumas is :D (But also, awwwww Anne of Austria and Louis XIII :( )
Mostly, though, I would like to ask if there's a reasonably readable bio of Cardinal Richelieu? As promised (and as I knew he would be from
Re: Three Musketeers
Date: 2022-08-05 05:54 am (UTC)Alas all the Richelieu books I read back in the day were in German, except for one which in French, and even if they were in English, I can’t say one impressed me much in terms of narrative readability. They were usually dense and did the job of informing me, but they weren’t exactly entertainingly written, more’s the pity.
Mildred, you asked me about the most ruthless and worst French King: like you, I don’t have detailed knowledge of all of them, but of those I know about, I would differentiate between “worst” and “most ruthless”. Louis XI “The Spider King” would be my nomination for “most ruthless” as well, but his tactics worked for him and France, he got what he wanted out of them, and got the better of England and the HRE both for the most part, no mean feat if both are at your borders and at times allied with each other. (He certainly outdid Napoleon in that department.) Now he was undoubtedly a terrible person, but “worst king” - no. At least not if you define “worst” as “worst for France”, in which case, hm, sorry, Louis XV, you’re at least getting into the close competition with your debts and creating/speeding along much of what your grandson would die for, along with Philip VI for starting the 100 years war, Charles VI “the Mad”, though one could argue genuine mental illness which isn’t his fault should take him out of the competition, and Catherine de’ Medici’s two boys on the throne, Charles IX and Henri III both (any of Catherine’s daughers would have been SO MUCH MORE COMPETENT at ruling than any of her sons, alas). Either sucked at the job.
Most ruthless?
From:Re: Most ruthless?
From:Re: Most ruthless?
From:Re: Most ruthless?
From:Re: Most ruthless?
From:Re: Most ruthless?
From:Miracle of the House of Brandenburg (NOT)
From:Re: Miracle of the House of Brandenburg (NOT)
From:Re: Miracle of the House of Brandenburg (NOT)
From:Re: Most ruthless?
From:Re: Most ruthless?
From:Re: Most ruthless?
From:Re: Three Musketeers
From:Re: Three Musketeers
Date: 2022-08-05 09:54 am (UTC)The Man in the Iron Mask: Fouquet and censorship
Date: 2022-08-06 04:27 pm (UTC)One, not only was I right about the censorship of Fouquet's letters, it was stricter than I thought. From 1665 - 1674, letters were an exception. In the autumn of 1672, his wife wrote to Louis XIV to ask permission to send her husband a letter and a report/bill to her husband. She got permission, but the security protocols were tight: she had to send her letter to Louvois, who read it aloud to Louis, who decided whether or not to allow it. Then Fouquet was allowed to read the letter in Saint-Mars' presence. Then he was allowed to think about his response for a few hours. Then he was given writing materials to compose a response under Saint-Mars' supervision. Then that reply would go to Louvois, who would read it aloud to Louis, who would decide whether or not to forward it on to Madame Fouquet.
Starting in 1674, Mme Fouquet gets permission to send her husband two letters a year regularly, but they still have to go through that laborious process.
1675 is when Eustache becomes Fouquet's valet. He does *not* have permission to talk to Lauzun, and never will. In fact, everyone freaks out when they find out that Lauzun has been sneaking into Fouquet's room and has met with Eustache and possibly learned his secret.
In 1679, Fouquet gets permission to write to his family whenever he likes, but Saint-Mars is to take all possible precautions to ensure that Eustache's secret doesn't get out. Indeed, Louis expected Foucquet's cooperation in this matter because, as Louvois wrote, the former superintendent was aware of how important it was that no one should know what Eustache knew.
But going back in time a bit, I have to share this delightful episode from shortly after Fouquet's arrival in prison.
One day, there's a storm. Lightning strikes the fortress. It happens to hit the place where the gunpowder is stored. There is a big explosion. Part of the fortress collapses. People die. Fouquet and his valet are protected by the thickness of the wall that they were standing next to from more than a few bruises, but his apartment is destroyed.
When the authorities go through the ruins of the apartment, they find a handkerchief hidden in the back of a (now broken) chair. The handkerchief is covered in writing. Apparently has been improvising chicken bones as pens and soot mixed with wine as ink to write on a handkerchief, which he then hides. (What he wrote is frustratingly not reported in this book. I'm guessing was probably sent directly to Louis and destroyed without being written down, because secret.)
Furthermore! One of the books Fouquet's been allowed to have turns out to have invisible ink writing in the margins. Because Fouquet was a noble who didn't just collect books for show, but actually read them, and he had an interest in practical chemistry. He had made invisible ink and wrote in his book, and the ink showed up when the book was warmed up by the fire caused by the explosion, which, remember, was caused by a lightning strike hitting the arsenal full of gunpowder.
I could not make this stuff up!
And even after the authorities confiscate these writing materials and report to Louis, Fouquet keeps finding ways to defeat the increased security precautions and writes to himself in invisible ink.
Of course, later on, Lauzun is sent to this prison, and he causes so much trouble (like setting his floor on fire, and digging the passage between the chimneys, and sneaking out), that Saint-Mars writes, "I believed that M. Foucquet was one of the wickedest prisoners to guard that could be found, but now I say that he is a lamb compared to [Lauzun]."
Re: The Man in the Iron Mask: Fouquet and censorship
Date: 2022-08-09 04:50 am (UTC)This seems to me to be a failure of centralization! Do you mean to tell me this is the kind of thing Louis XIV did?? If I were the Sun King I would have gotten someone else to do this!
One of the books Fouquet's been allowed to have turns out to have invisible ink writing in the margins. Because Fouquet was a noble who didn't just collect books for show, but actually read them, and he had an interest in practical chemistry. He had made invisible ink and wrote in his book, and the ink showed up when the book was warmed up by the fire caused by the explosion, which, remember, was caused by a lightning strike hitting the arsenal full of gunpowder.
...this is AMAZING. Okay, I'm a fan of Fouquet now :D
Re: The Man in the Iron Mask: Fouquet and censorship
Date: 2022-08-09 01:31 pm (UTC)Yes! Like Fritz and Catherine and Joseph (okay, maybe not to Joseph's extreme) and other absolute monarchs, Louis XIV managed to consolidate power in his hands by doing a bunch of unpleasant work that you or I would have gotten someone else to do. Remember that Louis was a kid when the Fronde happened and rebellious nobles were marching through his bedroom while he pretended to sleep, it was deeply traumatic, and I can see why he'd be willing to do a lot of paperwork if it meant everyone agreed he got to make all the decisions.
(Therapy for everyone.)
Also, when you have your #1 most powerful noble locked up for treason and because he has access to some of your most sensitive secrets, I can see why you want to keep a close and personal eye on what he's communicating. Remember that Louis has every reason to fear conspiracies directed against him--it's not like me refusing to delegate a database upgrade.
Re: The Man in the Iron Mask: Fouquet and censorship
From:Re: The Man in the Iron Mask: Fouquet and censorship
From:Re: The Man in the Iron Mask: Fouquet and censorship
From:Anne and Philippe
From:Re: Anne and Philippe
From:Re: Anne and Philippe
From:Re: Anne and Philippe
From:Re: Anne and Philippe
From:The Man in the Iron Mask: Eustache as valet with a secret
Date: 2022-08-06 05:25 pm (UTC)The initial letter from Louvois (written on behalf of Louis) to Saint-Mars says Eustache is "only a valet." He could be lying! But this is the documentary evidence we have.
We also have, as Fouquet's and Lauzun's valets keep getting sick and dying off, Saint-Mars writing repeatedly, "I can't find any volunteers in the town to replace these valets! How about that prisoner you said was a valet?" More precisely:
It was almost impossible to find a replacement, he wrote to the minister. None of his own valets would do the job if he paid them a million: "They have seen that those I have placed with M. Foucquet never come out."
In other words, not only do you give up your freedom to be in prison while you're serving as valet to an imprisoned noble, but prison conditions are far from healthy.
Louvois refuses to allow Eustache to serve the more dangerous Lauzun, but eventually allows him to serve Fouquet, on the condition that Eustache not be allowed to talk to anyone else.
All the security precautions that Louis and Louvois insist on, from even before Eustache is captured, have to do with keeping him from talking, not from being recognized. "Kill him if he talks about anything but his basic needs." "Make Fouquet promise not to tell anything he learns." "Don't let Eustache be alone with anyone." Etc. There are no masks until very, very late in the game, and no records of anyone above Saint-Mars ordering any masks.
At one point, Louvois writes a letter to Fouquet saying, in effect, Louis wants to know if Eustache has said anything in front of Fouquet's other valet about "
strike what he has seenhow he has been employed" before prison.It's hard to say what Louvois was thinking when he struck out the one phrase, but it seems like he instinctively wrote down the actual thing he and Louis were concerned about, and then crossed it out and wrote something more generic that wouldn't give as much away. Unfortunately, Wilkinson doesn't say anything about how legibile the phrase after being struck out--would Fouquet have been able to read it and figure out the real thing everyone was worried about, or was this the result of modern research? She does say it's clear Fouquet knew something about Eustache and it was guaranteed he would keep quiet about it, but it's not clear if he knew the full story.
Only once Fouquet assures Louvois that his other valet knows nothing about Eustache's secret, is Fouquet allowed to write regular leters to his family in 1679. (Letters which still have to be read by Louvois to Louis and approved before being sent on.)
But in 1680, after Fouquet dies, things change. Fouquet's other valet, La Rivière, who is not a prisoner, should be allowed to go free. But, evidence has emerged that he might have learned Eustache's secret. Plus he didn't tell anyone about the hole Lauzun dug between his chimney and Fouquet's. So La Rivière is kept locked up until his death, partly to keep Eustache's secret from getting out.
Interestingly, part of the reason Fouquet himself was locked up in a top-secret prison instead being allowed to go into exile, like many nobles who fell out of favor did, was because he had been privy to secret treaty negotiations for Louis (ones so secret Louis didn't even trust his ambassadors), as well as the secret workings of French finances, and Louis didn't want that information falling into the hands of his enemies.
As for why not just kill Eustache, Wilkinson writes:
Marcel Pagnol has argued though that Louis could simply have hanged Eustache rather than spend good money to maintain him in prison. However, executions did not just happen in the ancien régime. Not even Louis was above the law, and he was not able to break the law. Had this not been the case, Foucquet would never have been sent to Pignerol, but would have been executed on the Place de Grève instead.
That last sentence refers to something Wilkinson reminds me of that I had learned from Schultz but forgotten: Louis tried *really hard* to get a death sentence for Fouquet, but couldn't. The sentence was exile, and Louis changed it to life imprisonment. Could he have done what FW did to Katte and change it to death? Presumably, but either way, it's at least precedent for Louis not judicially murdering someone that he wanted dead. A high-ranking noble, admittedly! Not a valet. And as
But in my mind, it at least says that it wouldn't have been out of character for Louis to decide to imprison someone for knowing too much, even if he had the ability to have them killed. Especially since the same thing happens to La Rivière, who was himself a valet who learned too much. He was not killed, he was locked up.
As for whose valet Eustache was (assuming he was a valet), Minette is indeed one of the candidates! But for the opposite reasons that Selena speculated:
In July 1669, with the negotiation with Charles well underway, Louis suddenly and inexplicably fell out with Henriette. This was an unexpected development since the two had previously been very close, and it did not go unnoticed. On July 23, Henriette withdrew from Saint-Germain to go to Saint-Cloud to prepare for the birth of her child. Three days later, on July 26, Ralph Montagu wrote in her defense to Lord Arlington:
She is the most that can be beloved in this country by everybody but the King and her husband. She has too great a spirit I believe ever to complain, or to let the King her brother know of it, but I tell your Lordship of it, that you may take all the occasions wherein the King can, of putting his Majesty upon supporting her, both as his sister, and as a sister that deserves it from him by her real concern in everything that relates either to his honor or interest.
Some weeks after this, Henriette wrote to Lord Arlington about some “suspicions” she had, which were:
founded on reasons of which I informed the King some time ago by a Page of the Backstairs to the Queen. He may have told you of them, and I gave some credence to them, because at the same time I had perceived a coldness in the feelings of the King of France for me, which made me think that, fearing that I might discover that he was not acting in good faith, he wished to remove me from the business [of the negotiations], for fear that I might warn the King my brother of it, as assuredly I should have done.
What had caused this coldness is not known. Hartmann thought it stemmed from Louis’s belief that Henriette was favoring Charles’s interests over those of France.
Henriette’s biographer, Jacqueline Duchêne, believed that Henriette, a former lover of Louis’s, was jealous of Madame de Montespan, who was expecting the king’s child. While either of these suggestions is plausible, Petitfils had suggested a third, which is that Louis’s coldness toward Henriette originated with some indiscretion on the part of one of her servants, which threatened to compromise relations between Louis and Charles. Had Eustache been that servant, it would explain his arrest and subsequent imprisonment without trial in July 1669. Petitfils points out that Louvois, having announced Eustache’s imminent arrival at Pignerol to Saint-Mars on July 19, waited until July 23, the date Henriette left Saint-Germain, to set a trap for Eustache with a view to having him arrested at Calais.
It's also worth mentioning, re Eustache's job title, that Saint-Mars told Louvois that when people would ask about Eustache, he (S-M) would make up "fairy tales" to make fun of them and lead them off the track. Saint-Mars is thus extremely likely to be behind a bunch of the rumors about Eustache's identity.
Re: The Man in the Iron Mask: Eustache as valet with a secret
Date: 2022-08-09 05:00 am (UTC)However, executions did not just happen in the ancien régime. Not even Louis was above the law, and he was not able to break the law.
Wow... really? Like, couldn't you just get a corrupt judge to order an execution? (Jean Calas would like a word...) Or is that only a post-ancien régime thing? (Which seems implausible to me?)
Re: The Man in the Iron Mask: Eustache as valet with a secret
Date: 2022-08-09 05:19 am (UTC)Meanwhile, Calas was every day judical and police corruption, religious hatred (partly thanks to Louis revoking the Edict of Nantes, btw), and no one other than his family cared about his death in a provincial town until Voltaire got interested. And, of course, it happened a near century later. But I still doubt many people would have gotten upset if Louis had Eustache executed on a trumped up charge if he’d wanted to do that, and his NOT executing Fouquet doesn’t prove to me he had too many scruples to (unjustly) kill in general.
Thinking of legal cases with and without the death penalty in Louis’ life time, well, there was the Affair of the Poisons, and it was certainly execution time for La Voisin but not so much for Madame de Montespan, though the extent of her involvement is still contested, and the Marquise de Brinvillieres did die. My point being that death sentences for non-nobles were way easier and faster to get.
Re: The Man in the Iron Mask: Eustache as valet with a secret
From:Re: The Man in the Iron Mask: Eustache as valet with a secret
From:The Man in the Iron Mask: Assorted Tidbits
Date: 2022-08-06 05:39 pm (UTC)1. I found Lauzun asking Louis permission to make a trip to Holland, but that could be because he needed to be released from his job duties for the trip, not because it would have been illegal for him to leave the country.
One thing that I was reminded of was Voltaire's memoirs, where he's all appalled at Alexei and Fritz being given or threatened with the death penalty for leaving the country, and acts like it's unheard of--but given that this is Voltaire and the genre is snark, nobles leaving without permission could have been illegal in France too, there just weren't any monarchs whose heirs got embroiled in major scandals. (I mean, not in recent memory, at least--there was always Louis XI fleeing Dad (Charles VII) and going to Burgundy. Where, hilariously, the Burgundians were like, "We'll be super nice to him and he'll be super grateful to us when he comes to the throne!!" AND THEN it turns out just like 1740 in Prussia. :PPP)
2. Things that FW and Louis did have in common: when one of Fouquet's valets who had *not* followed him into prison, faithfully but unsuccessfully tried to break his former master out from prison, said valet was executed on a scaffold that could be seen from Fouquet's window. The valet's name was La Forêt.
:(
3. When the restrictions on Fouquet and Lauzun are lightened up in later years, they're allowed to eat with each other. Social commentary:
Moreover, if they liked, Saint-Mars could eat with them. Here we see one of the niceties of the prison system: the preservation of rank. Saint-Mars the jailer, although recently ennobled, was of lower rank than either Foucquet or Lauzun. Even in a prison setting, in order for him to share their table, the two aristocrats had to invite him.
4. Eustache's name. Where Horowski just says some historians carelessly wrote "Dauger" instead of "Danger" or "d'Angers" for many years, Wilkinson elaborates:
As it is written on the original letter de cachet, his name is given as Eustache, but what appears to be his surname is disputed, with some scholars reading it as Dauger, with a u, and others as Danger, with an n. In the letter in which he warned Saint-Mars to prepare for the arrival of a new prisoner, Louvois gave the prisoner’s name as Eustache d’Auger, and this, or more usually the variant Dauger, is the name by which this mysterious man has been best known ever since. However, Eustache’s name would have several variations in the official correspondence as time went on: Eustache Danger (February 15, 1679), Dangers (September 13, 1679), d’Angers (April 8, 1680), or even simply ‘the man Eustache (December 23, 1678; January 20, 1680; July 10, 1680). In his paper presented at a colloquium at Pignerol in 1987, historian Bernard Caire convincingly demonstrated that the prisoner’s name was Danger, Dangers, or d’Angers.
Re: The Man in the Iron Mask: Assorted Tidbits
Date: 2022-08-07 07:36 am (UTC)Cahn, Louis XI’s Dad whom he’s running away from because they have such a bad relationship is none other than the former Dauphin crowned by Jeanne d’Arc. In Shaw’s St. Joan, when Joan persuades Charles to give her what she wants and let her relieve the siege of Orleans, one of the early arguments she uses is asking him whether he doesn’t want to restore France for his son, and Charles immediately replies: “No: he’s a horrid little boy”. Given Charles ends up starving to death and aware his nobility is already with the Rising Sun, one can see where that’s coming from, I guess.
Re: The Man in the Iron Mask: Assorted Tidbits
From:Re: The Man in the Iron Mask: Assorted Tidbits
From:Re: The Man in the Iron Mask: Assorted Tidbits
From:Re: The Man in the Iron Mask: Assorted Tidbits
From:Re: The Man in the Iron Mask: Assorted Tidbits
From:Re: The Man in the Iron Mask: Assorted Tidbits
From:Re: The Man in the Iron Mask: Assorted Tidbits
From:Re: The Man in the Iron Mask
Date: 2022-08-02 04:59 am (UTC)Re: The Man in the Iron Mask
Date: 2022-08-02 05:17 am (UTC)https://selenak.dreamwidth.org/565628.html
Joffrey is still alive because Louis actually did have scruples nr: the burning of an innocent man, so he replaced him with another condemned prisoner at the last moment and sent him to the galleys as an anonymous prisoner instead. Joffrey then escaped and became a Medierranean pirate called the Rescator for a while (wearing a black mask in order not to be identified, btw).
Re: The Man in the Iron Mask
Date: 2022-08-02 04:57 am (UTC)Like everyone else, I love the "Saint-Mars was bored" explanation for the whole thing!
Re: The Man in the Iron Mask
Date: 2022-08-02 03:50 pm (UTC)I haven't read the original work his account is based on (it's in French, of course), but I might someday. I see that there's a 2021 account by a British historian who accepts this theory, and it's on Kindle; I might check that out.
And hmm, the French one is also on Kindle for a few bucks, and is fairly short. Maybe I should run it through Google translate and practice my French. ;)