按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
them at least； than the prisoners on the island； and must be put in
the safest places。〃 The 〃one〃 is doubtless Mattioli。 In 1681
Louvois had thought Dauger and La Riviere more important than
Mattioli； who； in March； 1694； came from Pignerol to Sainte…
Marguerite。 Now in April； 1694； a prisoner died at the island； a
prisoner who； like Mattioli； HAD A VALET。 We hear of no other
prisoner on the island； except Mattioli who had a valet。 A letter
of Saint…Mars （January 6； 1696） proves that no prisoner THEN had a
valet； for each prisoner collected his own dirty plates and dishes；
piled them up； and handed them to the lieutenant。
M。 Funck…Brentano argues that in this very letter （January 6； 1696）
Saint…Mars speaks of 〃les valets de messieurs les prisonniers。〃
But in THAT part of the letter Saint…Mars is not speaking of the
actual state of things at Sainte…Marguerite； but is giving
reminiscences of Fouquet and Lauzun； who； of course； at Piguerol；
had valets； and had money； as he shows。 Dauger had no money。 M。
Funck…Brentano next argues that early in 1694 one of the preacher
prisoners； Melzac； died； and cites M。 Jung （〃La Verite sur le
Masque de Fer；〃 p。 91）。 This is odd； as M。 Jung says that Melzac；
or Malzac； 〃died in the end of 1692； or early in 1693。〃 Why； then；
does M。 Funck…Brentano cite M。 Jung for the death of the preacher
early in 1694； when M。 Jung （conjecturally） dates his decease at
least a year earlier？＇1＇ It is not a mere conjecture as； on March
3； 1693； Barbezieux begs Saint…Mars to mention his Protestant
prisoners under nicknames。 There are THREE； and Malzac is no longer
one of them。 Malzac； in 1692； suffered from a horrible disease；
discreditable to one of the godly； and in October； 1692； had been
allowed medical expenses。 Whether they included a valet or not；
Malzac seems to have been non…existent by March； 1693。 Had he
possessed a valet； and had he died in 1694； why should HIS valet
have been 〃shut up in the vaulted prison〃？ This was the fate of
the valet of the prisoner who died in April； 1694； and was probably
Mattioli。
＇1＇ M。 Funck…Brentano's statement is in Revue Historique； lvi。 p。
298。 〃Malzac died at the beginning of 1694；〃 citing Jung； p。 91。
Now on p。 91 M。 Jung writes； 〃At the beginning of 1694 Saint…Mars
had six prisoners； of whom one Melzac； dies。〃 But M。 Jung （pp。
269； 270） later writes； 〃It is probable that Melzac died at the end
of 1692； or early in 1693；〃 and he gives his reasons； which are
convincing。 M。 Funck…Brentano must have overlooked M。 Jung's
change of opinion between his p。 91 and his pp。 269； 270。
Mattioli； certainly； had a valet in December； 1693； at Pignerol。
He went to Sainte…Marguerite in March； 1694。 In April； 1694； a
prisoner with a valet died at Sainte…Marguerite。 In January； 1696；
no prisoner at Sainte…Marguerite had a valet。 Therefore； there is
a strong presumption that the 〃prisonnier au valet〃 who died in
April； was Mattioli。
After December； 1693； when he was still at Pignerol； the name of
Mattioli； freely used before； never occurs in the correspondence。
But we still often hear of 〃l'ancien prisonnier；〃 〃the old
prisoner。〃 He was； on the face of it； Dauger； by far the oldest
prisoner。 In 1688； Saint…Mars； having only one prisoner （Dauger）；
calls him merely 〃my prisoner。 In 1691； when Saint…Mars had
several prisoners； Barbezieux styles Dauger 〃your prisoner of
twenty years' standing。〃 When； in 1696…1698； Saint…Mars mentions
〃mon ancien prisonnier；〃 〃my prisoner of long standing；〃 he
obviously means Dauger； not Mattioliabove all； if Mattioli died
in 1694。 M。 Funck…Brentano argues that 〃mon ancien prisonnier〃 can
only mean 〃my erstwhile prisoner； he who was lost and is restored
to me〃that is； Mattioli。 This is not the view of M。 Jung； or M。
Lair； or M。 Loiseleur。
Friends of Mattioli's claims rest much on this letter of Barbezieux
to Saint…Mars （November 17； 1697）： 〃You have only to watch over the
security of all your prisoners； without ever explaining to anyone
what it is that your prisoner of long standing did。〃 That secret；
it is argued； MUST apply to Mattioli。 But all the world knew what
Mattioli had done！ Nobody knew； and nobody knows； what Eustache
Dauger had done。 It was one of the arcana imperii。 It is the
secret enforced ever since Dauger's arrest in 1669。 Saint…Mars
（1669） was not to ask。 Louis XIV。 could only lighten the captivity
of Fouquet （1678） if his valet； La Riviere； did not know what
Dauger had done。 La Riviere （apparently a harmless man） lived and
died in confinement； the sole reason being that he might perhaps
know what Dauger had done。 Consequently there is the strongest
presumption that the 〃ancien prisonnier〃 of 1697 is Dauger； and
that 〃what he had done〃 （which Saint…Mars must tell to no one） was
what Dauger did； not what Mattioli did。 All Europe knew what
Mattioli had done； his whole story had been published to the world
in 1682 and 1687。
On July 19； 1698； Barbezieux bade Saint…Mars come to assume the
command of the Bastille。 He is to bring his 〃old prisoner；〃 whom
not a soul is to see。 Saint…Mars therefore brought his man MASKED；
exactly as another prisoner was carried masked from Provence to the
Bastille in 1695。 M。 Funck…Brentano argues that Saint…Mars was now
quite fond of his old Mattioli； so noble； so learned。
At last； on September 18； 1698； Saint…Mars lodged his 〃old
prisoner〃 in the Bastille； 〃an old prisoner whom he had at
Pignerol；〃 says the journal of du Junca； Lieutenant of the
Bastille。 His food； we saw； was brought him by Rosarges alone； the
〃Major；〃 a gentleman who had always been with Saint…Mars。 Argues
M。 Funck…Brentano； all this proves that the captive was a
gentleman； not a valet。 Why？ First； because the Bastille； under
Louis XIV。； was 〃une prison de distinction。〃 Yet M。 Funck…Brentano
tells us that in Mazarin's time 〃valets mixed up with royal plots〃
were kept in the Bastille。 Again； in 1701； in this 〃noble prison；〃
the Mask was turned out of his room to make place for a female
fortune…teller； and was obliged to chum with a profligate valet of
nineteen； and a 〃beggarly〃 bad patriot； who 〃blamed the conduct of
France； and approved that of other nations； especially the Dutch。〃
M。 Funck…Brentano himself publishes these facts （1898）； in part
published earlier （1890） by M。 Lair。＇1＇ Not much noblesse here！
Next； if Rosarges； a gentleman； served the Mask； Saint…Mars alone
（1669） carried his food to the valet； Dauger。 So the service of
Rosarges does not ennoble the Mask and differentiate him from
Dauger； who was even more nobly served； by Saint…Mars。
＇1＇ Legendes de la Bastille； pp。 86…89。 Citing du Junca's Journal；
April 30； 1701。
On November 19； 1703； the Mask died suddenly （still in his velvet
mask）； and was buried on the 20th。 The parish register of the
church names him 〃Marchialy〃 or 〃Marchioly；〃 one may read it either
way； du Junca； Lieutenant of the Bastille； in his contemporary
journal； calls him 〃M。 de Marchiel。〃 Now； Saint…Mars often spells
Mattioli； 〃Marthioly。〃
This is the one strength of the argument for Mattioli's claims to
the Mask。 M。 Lair replies； 〃Saint…Mars had a mania for burying
prisoners under fancy names；〃 and gives examples。 One is only a
gardener； Francois Eliard （1701）； concerning whom it is expressly
said that； as he is a prisoner； his real name is not to be given；
so he is registered as Pierre Maret （others read Navet； 〃Peter
Turnip〃）。 If Saint…Mars； looking about for a false name for
Dauger's burial register； hit on Marsilly （the name of Dauger's old
master）； that MIGHT be miswritten Marchialy。 However it be； the
age of the Mask is certainly falsified； the register gives 〃about
forty…five years old。〃 Mattioli would have been sixty…three；
Dauger cannot have been under fifty…three。
There the case stands。 If Mattioli died in April； 1694； he cannot
be the Man in the Iron Mask。 Of Dauger's death we find no record；
unless he was the Man in the Iron Mask； and died； in 1703； in the
Bastille。 He was certainly； in 1669 and 1688； at Pignerol and at
Sainte…Marguerite； the center of the mystery about some great
prisoner； a Marshal of France； the Duc de Beaufort； or a son of
Oliver Cromwell。 Mattioli was not mystery； no secret。 Dauger is
so mysterious that probably the secret of his mystery was unknown
to himself。 By 1701； when obscure wretches were shut up with the
Mask； the secret； whatever its nature； had ceased to be of moment。
The captive was now the mere victim of cruel routine。 But twenty
years earlier； Saint…Mars had said that Dauger 〃takes things
easily； resigned to the will of God and the King。〃
To sum up； on July 1； 1669； the valet of the Huguenot intriguer；
Roux de Marsilly； the valet resident in England； known to his
master as 〃Martin；〃 was 〃wanted〃 by the French secret police。 By
July 19； a