INTRODUCTION.

THE MAN WITH THE IRON MASK.INTRODUCTION.

THE MAN WITH THE IRON MASK.

Arrival of the Man with the Iron Mask at the Bastille—His Death—General Reflections on this celebrated Prisoner—Motives which determined the present Writer to make fresh Researches concerning him—Plan and Object of the Work.

About three o’clock in the afternoon of September 18, 1698, the Sieur de Saint-Mars, coming from the Isles Sainte-Marguerite, made his entry into the château of the Bastille, of which fortress he had just been appointed governor. Accompanying him, and borne along in his litter, was a prisoner, whose face was covered with a black velvet mask, and of whom Saint-Mars, with an escort of several mounted men-at-arms, had been the inseparable and vigilant gaoler, throughout the long journey from Provence. Saint-Mars had halted at Palteau, an estate situated between Joigny and Villeneuve-le-Roi, which belonged to him, and for a long time the old inhabitants of Villeneuve used to recall having seen the mysterious litter traversing in the evening the principal street of their town. The remembrance ofthis apparition has been perpetuated in the district, and the singular incidents characterizing it, related by the former to each new generation, have been handed down to our own days. The care taken by Saint-Mars at meal-times to keep his prisoner with his back to the windows, the pistols which were always to be seen within reach, of the suspicious gaoler, the two beds which he caused to be placed side by side, so many precautions, so much mystery, excited the lively curiosity of the assembled peasants, and formed an incessant subject of conversation among them. At the Bastille, the prisoner was placed in the third room south of the Tower of La Bertaudière, prepared for him by the turnkey Dujonca, who, some days previous to his arrival, had received a written order to that effect from Saint-Mars.[1]

Five years afterwards, on Tuesday, November 20, 1703, at four o’clock in the afternoon, the drawbridge of the formidable fortress was lowered and gave passage to a sad and mournful train. A few men, bearing a dead body, having for sole escort two subordinate employés of the Bastille, silently issued forth and directed their steps towards the cemetery of the Church of Saint-Paul. Nothing could be more thrilling than the sight of this group gliding along furtively under shadow of the falling night. Nothing could be moreutterly abandoned, and, in appearance, more obscure, than these unknown remains followed by two strangers, in a hurry to fulfil their task. Around the grave as, the evening before, around the bed of the dying man, there were no signs of sorrow or of regret. The prisoner of Provence had fallen ill on the Sunday. His illness having suddenly increased during the following day, the chaplain of the Bastille had been sent for; too late, however, to allow him time to go in quest of the last sacraments, yet still sufficiently early to enable him to address some rapid and common-place exhortations to the dying man. On the register of the Church of Saint-Paul he was inscribed under the name of Marchialy. At the Bastille he had always been known as the Prisoner of Provence.[2]

Such is the mysterious personage who, unknown and abandoned to the obscurity of a prison during the latter part of his existence, became, a few years after his death, celebrated throughout the entire world, and the romantic and piquant remembrance of whom has, for more than a century, charmed the imagination of all, attracted universal attention, and exercised uselessly the patience and sagacity of so many minds. Become the hero of the most famous of legends, he has had the rare privilege of everywhere exciting the curiosity of the public, without ever either wearying or satiating it. At all epochs and among all classes, in England, Germany, Italy, as well as France, in our owndays, as in the time of Voltaire, people have manifested the utmost anxiety to penetrate the secret of this long imprisonment. Napoleon I. greatly regretted not being able to satisfy this desire.[3]Louis Philippe, too, discussed this problem, the solution of which he acknowledged himself ignorant of;[4]and, if other sovereigns[5]have pretended they were acquainted with it, their contradictory statements lead us to believe that they were no better informed, but that in their eyes the knowledge and transmission of the dark secret ought to be counted among the prerogatives of the crown.

In the long list of writers whom the Man with the Iron Mask, the sphinx of our history, has attracted and tempted, are many illustrious names, as well as some less known now-a-days. During thirty years, Voltaire, Fréron, Saint-Foix, Lagrange-Chancel, and Father Griffet took part in a brilliant joust, in which each of the adversaries succeeded a great deal better in overthrowing his opponent’s opinions than in securing the triumph of his own.

Many times, and in our own days even, has the debate been resumed, then momentarily abandoned, then recommenced again. Far and near new theories have been broached, invariably supported by vague and weak proofs, and soon overthrown by strong and valid objections. Fifty-two writers[6]have by turns endeavoured to throw light uponthis question, but without success; and it can be affirmed that a century of controversy and of exertion has not yet dissipated the mysterious gloom in which Saint-Mars’ celebrated prisoner is enveloped.

So many successive checks, by still further stimulating curiosity, have caused it to be believed that it was impossible to arrive at an incontestable and definitive result. Every new explanation having been victoriously repelled almost as soon as started, people have despaired of ever attaining the truth, and some have even gone so far as to proclaim it as being beyond human reach. “The story of the Iron Mask,” says M. Michelet,[7]“will probably for ever remain obscure,” “The Man with the Iron Mask will very likely always be an insoluble problem,” has been said elsewhere;[8]and M. Henri Martin declares that “history has not the right of pronouncing an opinion on what will never emerge from the domain of conjecture.”[9]

If different methods of procedure had been adopted by the numerous writers who have attempted the solution of this problem, I should not have had the temerity to have added to their number; but an attentive study of theirwritings shows that they have all taken the same point of departure, and that they have all given themselves up to a single idea. All have kept fixed in their minds this observation of Voltaire’s:—“What redoubles one’s astonishment is, that at the time when this prisoner was sent to the Isles Sainte-Marguerite, no important personage had disappeared from Europe.”[10]

All have asked themselves if there really did not disappear from Europe some important personage, and they have immediately set themselves to discover some person of consideration, no matter who, that had disappeared during the period extending from 1662 to 1703. When by the aid of the very faintest resemblance they have fancied they have found their hero, they have forthwith adapted the mask of black velvet to him, and have seen in him the famous dead of November 20, 1703. Erecting their conjecture into a theory, they have become ardent propagators of it, and have adopted all that told in its favour with the same readiness with which they have energetically denied all that happened to be opposed to it. When the list of missing illustrious men belonging to this period was exhausted, certain writers, sooner than renounce seeing the Man with the Iron Mask in some person still alive in 1706, have had no other expedient than to delay for several years the death of Saint-Mars’ prisoner, in order not to abandon so dear a discovery.[11]

But many of these ingenious and inventive writers acted in good faith. Not perceiving the defects in their pleading,they only considered its feeblest parts, and in default of making a great number of converts, they invariably ended, as is easy enough, by convincing themselves.

Persuaded of the unsatisfactory nature of a method of procedure which had always produced such ephemeral results, I have thought that, extraordinary means having proved so inefficacious, more simple ones might perhaps lead to a new solution, (yet one hardly dared hope for it, when twenty-five hypotheses had already been put forward)—to a solution at once decisive, to an absolute conviction, to the certainty of not having to apprehend from the reader either doubt or objection. Commencing the study of this question without any fixed opinion, and with the firm resolution of seeking only the truth, I set about collecting from the whole of our archives authentic despatches relating to the State prisoners under Louis XIV. from the year 1660 to 1710. Without pre-occupying myself with the Ministers who signed them, or the prisoners whom they concerned; without limiting my researches to Saint-Mars, Pignerol, the Isles Sainte-Marguerite, or the Bastille, I arranged these despatches, of which more than three hundred are unpublished, in order of their dates. They then lent a material assistance; some explained others, and from this long and minute inquiry, slowly pursued through heaps of documents, has resulted, I hope, a definitive solution.

It was expedient this solution should be obtained.[12]Inthis century, when the historian’s resources are increased by the progress in certain sciences, by so many spectacles offered as an instruction to his fruitful meditations, by a more complete knowledge of institutions and facts, by the facility afforded of penetrating into collections which it had been believed would remain for ever inaccessible to investigators—in this century, which is literally the century of history, it behoved us not to leave in our annals, without solving it, a problem which had so frequently attracted the attention of foreigners. It is this which determined me to undertake a task which some may consider more curious than important. But to the interest peculiar to this subject has to be added that which is attached to the principal persons in whom by turns people have seen the prisoner of Saint-Mars. Before bringing on the scene the true Man with the Iron Mask, I shall examine rapidly, and with the aid of unpublished documents, the illustrious usurpers of this romantic title, so that this work may serve, not only to satisfy a trivial curiosity, but also to throw a new light upon some of the most singular points of the inner history of our country.

FOOTNOTES:[1]Estat de Prisonnies qui sont envoies par l’Ordre du Roy à la Bastille, à commenser du mescredy honsiesme du mois d’Octobre que je suis entré en possession de la charge de Lieutenant du Roy, en l’année 1690, by Dujonca, fol. 37, verso:—Archives of the Arsenal. Letter from Barbézieux, Minister of War, to Saint-Mars, dated July 19, 1698:—“You can write in advance to His Majesty’s lieutenant of this château to have a chamber ready to receive this prisoner on your arrival.”—Unpublished despatch from the Archives of the Ministry of War. Traditions collected at Villeneuve-le-Roi. Registers of the Secretary’s Office of the King’s Household.[2]Estat de Prisonnies qui sortet de la Bastille à commenser de honsiesme du mois d’Octobre que je suis entré en possession, en l’année 1690, by Dujonca, fol. 80, verso:—Archives of the Arsenal.Registre des Baptêmes, Mariages, et Sépultures de la Paroisse de Saint-Paul, s. 1703-1705, vol. ii. No. 166:—Archives of the Hôtel de Ville. Registers of the Secretary’s Office of the King’s Household. Imperial Archives.[3]Souvenirs de la Duchesse d’Abrantès, recueillis par M. Paul Lacroix (Bibliophile Jacob).[4]I am indebted for this information to the kindness of M. Guizot.[5]Especially Louis XVIII., whose language is in complete disaccord with that of Louis XV. But I shall refer to this point of debate hereafter.[6]Voltaire, Prosper Marchand, Baron de Crunyngen, Armand de la Chapelle, Chevalier de Mouhy, Duke de Nivernais, La Beaumelle, Lenglet-Dufresnoy, Lagrange-Chancel, Fréron, Saint-Foix, Father Griffet, Hume, De Palteau, Sandraz de Courtilz, Constantin de Renneville, Baron d’Heiss, Sénac de Meilhan, De la Borde, Soulavie, Linguet, Marquis de Luchet, Anquetil, Father Papon, Malesherbes, Dulaure, Chevalier de Taulès, Chevalier de Cubières, Carra, Louis Dutens, Abbé Barthélemy, Quintin Craufurd, De Saint Mihiel, Bouche, Champfort, Millin, Spittler, Roux-Fazillac, Regnault-Warin, Weiss, Delort, George Agar Ellis, Gibbon, Auguste Billiard, Dufay, Bibliophile Jacob, Paul Lecointre, Letoumeur, Jules Loiseleur, De Bellecombe, Mérimée, Sardou; without counting the writers of general history, such as S. Sismondi, Henri Martin, Michelet, Camille Rousset, Depping, and all who have written articles on this question in cyclopædias.[7]Histoire de France, vol. xii. p. 435.[8]Art de Vérifier les Dates, vol. vi. p. 292.[9]Histoire de France, vol. xiv. p. 564.[10]Voltaire,Siècle de Louis XIV., p. 289.[11]M. de Taulès, for instance, a partisan of the theory which makes Avedick, the patriarch of Constantinople, the Man with the Iron Mask, and to which I shall refer in the after-part of this book.[12]About a year ago (Moniteurof September 30, 1868)àproposof the fine collection of unpublished documents given to the world by M. Ravaisson, under the title ofArchives de la Bastille, M. de Lescure expressed a wish to see this question definitively settled. I had been occupying myself with it for a considerable period, though not without having satisfied myself that the learned conservator of the Arsenal Archives contemplated no work on the Man with the Iron Mask, in continuation of his publication, not yet brought down to the epoch of the entry into the Bastille of this famous prisoner. Among contemporary authors, besides M. Paul Lacroix (Bibliophile Jacob), who in 1840 supported the theory that made Fouquet the celebrated prisoner, M. Jules Loiseleur, in theRevue Contemporaineof July 31, 1867, and M. de Bellecombe, in theInvestigateurof May, 1868, have maintained, as the result of their labours, that the Man with the Iron Mask was an unknown and obscure spy, whose name would never be ascertained. We shall recur to the two studies of MM. Lacroix and Loiseleur, of which one is very ingenious, and the other exhibits a penetrating sagacity, while both display a varied and trustworthy erudition.

[1]Estat de Prisonnies qui sont envoies par l’Ordre du Roy à la Bastille, à commenser du mescredy honsiesme du mois d’Octobre que je suis entré en possession de la charge de Lieutenant du Roy, en l’année 1690, by Dujonca, fol. 37, verso:—Archives of the Arsenal. Letter from Barbézieux, Minister of War, to Saint-Mars, dated July 19, 1698:—“You can write in advance to His Majesty’s lieutenant of this château to have a chamber ready to receive this prisoner on your arrival.”—Unpublished despatch from the Archives of the Ministry of War. Traditions collected at Villeneuve-le-Roi. Registers of the Secretary’s Office of the King’s Household.

[2]Estat de Prisonnies qui sortet de la Bastille à commenser de honsiesme du mois d’Octobre que je suis entré en possession, en l’année 1690, by Dujonca, fol. 80, verso:—Archives of the Arsenal.Registre des Baptêmes, Mariages, et Sépultures de la Paroisse de Saint-Paul, s. 1703-1705, vol. ii. No. 166:—Archives of the Hôtel de Ville. Registers of the Secretary’s Office of the King’s Household. Imperial Archives.

[3]Souvenirs de la Duchesse d’Abrantès, recueillis par M. Paul Lacroix (Bibliophile Jacob).

[4]I am indebted for this information to the kindness of M. Guizot.

[5]Especially Louis XVIII., whose language is in complete disaccord with that of Louis XV. But I shall refer to this point of debate hereafter.

[6]Voltaire, Prosper Marchand, Baron de Crunyngen, Armand de la Chapelle, Chevalier de Mouhy, Duke de Nivernais, La Beaumelle, Lenglet-Dufresnoy, Lagrange-Chancel, Fréron, Saint-Foix, Father Griffet, Hume, De Palteau, Sandraz de Courtilz, Constantin de Renneville, Baron d’Heiss, Sénac de Meilhan, De la Borde, Soulavie, Linguet, Marquis de Luchet, Anquetil, Father Papon, Malesherbes, Dulaure, Chevalier de Taulès, Chevalier de Cubières, Carra, Louis Dutens, Abbé Barthélemy, Quintin Craufurd, De Saint Mihiel, Bouche, Champfort, Millin, Spittler, Roux-Fazillac, Regnault-Warin, Weiss, Delort, George Agar Ellis, Gibbon, Auguste Billiard, Dufay, Bibliophile Jacob, Paul Lecointre, Letoumeur, Jules Loiseleur, De Bellecombe, Mérimée, Sardou; without counting the writers of general history, such as S. Sismondi, Henri Martin, Michelet, Camille Rousset, Depping, and all who have written articles on this question in cyclopædias.

[7]Histoire de France, vol. xii. p. 435.

[8]Art de Vérifier les Dates, vol. vi. p. 292.

[9]Histoire de France, vol. xiv. p. 564.

[10]Voltaire,Siècle de Louis XIV., p. 289.

[11]M. de Taulès, for instance, a partisan of the theory which makes Avedick, the patriarch of Constantinople, the Man with the Iron Mask, and to which I shall refer in the after-part of this book.

[12]About a year ago (Moniteurof September 30, 1868)àproposof the fine collection of unpublished documents given to the world by M. Ravaisson, under the title ofArchives de la Bastille, M. de Lescure expressed a wish to see this question definitively settled. I had been occupying myself with it for a considerable period, though not without having satisfied myself that the learned conservator of the Arsenal Archives contemplated no work on the Man with the Iron Mask, in continuation of his publication, not yet brought down to the epoch of the entry into the Bastille of this famous prisoner. Among contemporary authors, besides M. Paul Lacroix (Bibliophile Jacob), who in 1840 supported the theory that made Fouquet the celebrated prisoner, M. Jules Loiseleur, in theRevue Contemporaineof July 31, 1867, and M. de Bellecombe, in theInvestigateurof May, 1868, have maintained, as the result of their labours, that the Man with the Iron Mask was an unknown and obscure spy, whose name would never be ascertained. We shall recur to the two studies of MM. Lacroix and Loiseleur, of which one is very ingenious, and the other exhibits a penetrating sagacity, while both display a varied and trustworthy erudition.

Back to Index Next