Talk:Man in the Iron Mask/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vivien de Bulonde

According to the French Wikipédia article, the identification with Vivien de Bulonde is just one hypothesis among others and lacks consistency in several respects. (I know nothing about the matter and have no opinion one way or the other. But perhaps the view that is upheld here should be sourced.) - Mu 21:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The page has since been changed but Mu was correct to query the previous entry. There is compelling evidence (see revised version) that the theory that Bulonde was the Man in the Iron Mask is based on an entirely false premise and that he was alive, and free, at a time that makes it impossible for him to be the Mask.

• You also wiped out the former article structure with your "additions" so I have reverted it. Edit the article instead of demolishing it.- Skysmith 19:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Prince in Prison

The theme of a prince in prison goes back to Siddartha Gautama, Barlaam and Josaphath and Don Carlos, perhaps we should have an article about it.

Sources?

What are the sources for this article? - Kevingarcia 03:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• [French Wikipedia] #

Vernon White 13:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Marius Topin's views on the identity of the Man in the Iron Mask were published in France in 1870 and translated in to English and published by Henry Vizetelly. Historical studies by Topin, published between 1863 and 1881 are listed in the catalogue of the [Bibliotheque Nationale] (Paris).

I have no sources only a thought. Historians are now performing DNA tests on bones that are hundreds of years old, such as those of Richard 111, and of course thousands of years, the mummies. If we know where this man is buried is it possible to do a DNA sample, first to find out his relationship to the king. Maybe we can eliminate that. Then work our way down the list. with all the scientific knowledge that we have today, we may be able to find some living ancestors of some of the people in question.LinnieG (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

IP address 199.224.119.180 had did some minor vandalism to this article. I don't know where/how to report, but if anybody cares to, go ahead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.14.205.2 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

added comment: The section "Arrest and imprisonment" starts with "LOLOL". I'm new to editing-- will try to remove it, but am reporting it here... aimzzz, Jan 21, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimzzz (talk • contribs) 23:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The identity of the Man in the Iron Mask

This is definitely an interesting item of history because of what is implied by the elaborate precautions. The prisoner must have been someone easily recognizable by a large number of people for the mask to be necessary at all. A valet, or even the envoy of a foreign power, would be known by so few people, especially in pre-photographic days, that the odds of his ever being recognized would be close to nothing -- and that recognition itself would be meaningless. The sight of someone's valet being hustled along by gendarmes from one prison to another would not cause major political repercussions.

On the other hand, whoever the prisoner was, he would have to be someone whose life Louis XIV valued, since if he was dangerous enough to Louis' interests to merit such enormous precautions, then his quiet liquidation would be the safest bet. Ruthless, yes, but few rulers have ever been squeamish about such matters. A nobody who knew too much would have been buried in the fortress ditch before nightfall.

This suggests to my mind at least that he was either a very close relative of the King's, whose claim would be superior to Louis' own (Louis' older brother) or who would make Louis' claim to the throne suspect (Louis' father). This is, of course, assuming that the precautions were ordered by Louis. The theory that the prison governor created this charade to make himself seem more important seems very plausible, as well, and is probably more likely. Monomakh 04:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Monomakh

Well, he can't have been a well known person, because there's nobody unaccounted for! Therefore, he must have *looked like* a well known person, which makes the "close relative of Louis" theory stronger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.151.84 (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Cited and uncited.

There are too many "some say..." stories without any specifics for who said them, or if there is any attribution, it's unclear where this can be verified. I hope this spurs some research on obtaining citations and not some deletionist to remove the ones I have labeled {{fact}}. patsw 15:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

rm Wiki-nonsense, but it had a point

• This entry, one of an unprecedented 52, has won the September 2005 West Dakota Prize, awarded for successfully employing the expression "legend states" in a complete sentence.

I have modified the offending sentence to one with a coherent meaning. patsw 15:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Chateau d'If?

This article says that the prisoner was held at the Chateau d'If, but the article on the Chateau d'If says he wasn't. Someone is mistaken - anyone know who it is? --Andersonblog (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What about the Iron Mask?

So what is the history of how the detail of the iron mask came to associated with this personage? This article is heavily revisionist, that the reader has no clue about the version it is revising. I don't believe that this fault is intentional -- nor is it unique to this article; there are many articles on Wikipedia that are as heavily revisionist as this one is. -- llywrch (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Velvet and iron

One source I read pointed out the difference between a mask of velvet - keeping the person unknown - and a mask of iron - a prison within a prison.

How practical would it be in medical terms, to be wearing an iron (or metal) mask for extended periods of time?

People might be recognised beyond their immediate circle - see the story about Louis XVI's capture at Varennes.

Jackiespeel (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

heavy metal poisoning would result. An "Iron Mask" is a metaphor. In reality, the mask would have been cloth if the prisoner was worth keeping. As metaphor, the mask refers to the Inquisition, general repression, and abuse of power by nobles. Europe learned a lot from the Inquisition. Which is the more appealing for a title if you want to sell a book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.80.189 (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The prisoner never worn an iron mask-that is just a detail invented by Voltaire. The mask was velvet. --A.S. Brown (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

A cell with multiple doors

Does the author mean that the entrance to the cell had multiple doors or that the cell had more than one door in different places? For the life of me, I don't see how its having doors in different places would make it harder for people to listen in. Could someone please explain what the author meant by this?

Utipossidetis (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was a layering of doors. So if someone listened in on the first door, there would still be multiple cell doors behind the first, preventing the listener from hearing the conversation’s in the cell.

Branonlynn76 (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that definitely makes sense. Thanks. Utipossidetis (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It is ambigious and I assume it means in the manner of an airlock, unless the source is also ambigious I believe this should be clarified. 75.177.47.137 (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Remove chateau d'if or not?

I have not studied on the man in the iron mask much, but the one book I have read (Le Secret du masque de fer by Marcel Pagnol) did not talk about Chateau d'if. However, it did go through the prisoner's life step by step. Does anyone know more? Or should this be a potential change. --Marcelpagnol (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As Chateau d'if is only referenced in the sentence "...was a prisoner who was held in a number of jails, including the Bastille and the Chateau d'If." I propose to change "... and the Chateau d'if" into "...and the fortress of Pinerolo." Any comments? If not, I will change it Tuesday, 14 October 2008. Any ideas are welcome.--Marcelpagnol (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency in article -- constantly masked or not?

The introduction states that the prisoner was constantly masked. In the body of the text, it is implied that he may have been masked only on certain occasions -- e.g., when being moved from one prison to another. The latter is certainly more consistent with the account presented in a recent History Program documentary, but no doubt others will know the sources better than I do. Nandt1 (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am coming into this conversation years late and have no sources only a thought but I suggest that in order to eat or drink the mask must have been removed at times. I have read nowhere that he was seen as undernourished.LinnieG (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Could Eustache Dauger have been a spy?

My own theory is that Eustache Dauger could have been a spy for Louis XIII; his occupation as a valet would have made him an ideal choice to act as a King's Agent. I assume that Dauger's true identity was so secret that when the King no longer had any need of him, he was locked up under the identity of a deceased prisoner for his own safety, since the King had powerful enemies who would have tortured a spy to death for what he knew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glammazon (talk • contribs) 04:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Earlier reference

Dumas was not the first. I saw a reference in a Catherine Gore novel from the 1830s, I think it was The Cabinet Minister. It said the man in the iron mask was a way of disposing of a twin king of France. I wish I had the page number but the novel is available on archive.org. 4.249.63.229 (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC) I found it. Catherine Gore, The Cabinet Minister, volume II, page 273, London: Samuel Bentley pub. 1839. 4.249.63.229 (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Bulonde

I found a contradiction in the section on Bulonde; it stated that "The dates of the letters fit the dates of the original records about the man in the mask." There is no citation, and I have removed it, since the dates don't seem to fit. The article states that Dauger was first heard of in July 1669, and the Bulonde's crime occurred in 1691. If those two dates are accurate, than some mention must be made of how Bulonde could possibly be considered identical with Dauger. 97.124.200.49 (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Man in the Iron Mask/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

ok well this was a very detailed article. Though i disagree on the fact that he couldn't have been a prince or Louis brother. The period when he was a servant would have sufficed to dicredit that fact to guards and other prisoners that knew of him at the prisons where he was. Shangrila1000000 00:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)PSM The Mask Was Infact NOT Iron But Acctually Velvet!! BeCkahH

Last edited at 01:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 22:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Midwife

According to the present text: "That would have allowed the queen to be left alone with her midwife who would have given birth to the second child." I know that midwives play an important part in the event, but not that important! I think the appropriate word is 'delivered'.86.174.78.17 (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Voltaire Misunderstanding? & Citations

In Viscount Mahon's The Life of Louis, Prince of Condé: Surnamed the Great (or at Archive.org), he asserts that Voltaire tells us he wore a mask of velvet & springs. Also here's the required citation from Chamber's Miscellany for the Bastille episode, if helps:
"Thus, the statement of Voltaire, and all those who have followed in his wake, about the extraordinary respect paid by the governor of the fortress, and even by the Marquis de Louvois, must be considered in the light of an unsupported, if not an invented, accessory to the romance of the incident A manuscript journal kept by M. Dujonca, lieutenant of the Bastile, first quoted by the P^re Griffet, is the only authentic document extant upon the subject of the prisoner, apart from the official correspondence to be hereafter mentioned, inasmuch -as the register of the Bastile copied in the work called La Bastile Devotee, or * The Bastile Exposed/ is judged to be merely a com- pilation from Dujonca's journal so far as concerns this particular case, as all the pnncipal records are known to have been destroyed. This journal records that, * at three o'clock on the afternoon of Thursday, the i8th September 1698, Saint-Mars arrived from the Isle de Sainte-Marguerite, bringing with him, in a litter, an old prisoner, whom he had had at Pignerol, whose name was not mentioned, and who was always kept masked. This prisoner was put into the tower of La Baziniere until night, when I myself •conducted him at nine in the evening to the third chamber of the tower of La Bertaudiere, which care had been taken to furnish with all things necessary. The Sieur Rosarges, who likewise came from the Isle de Sainte-Marguerite with Saint-Mars, was directed to wait upon and take care of the aforesaid prisoner, who was fed by the :governor.'

In the same journal, the death of the prisoner is mentioned under date of the 19th November 1703, in the following terms: *The unknown prisoner, always masked with a black velvet mask, whom M. ide Saint-Mars had brought with him, and had long kept under his charge, feeling slightly indisposed after attending mass, died to-day at ten at night, widiout having experienced any considerable illness : he could not have suffered less. M. Giraut, our chaplain, confessed him yesterday. Surprised by death, he was unable to receive the sacraments, and our chaplain exhorted him for a moment before he died. He was interred on Tuesday. 20th November, at four in the afternoon, in the cemetery of St rauL His interment cost forty livres.* " --Lmstearn (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Who was "Guiche?"

At the moment, the "Disgrace" section (which needs supporting citations) begins: "In April 1659, Eustache [Dauger de Cavoye] and Guiche were invited to an Easter weekend party at the castle of Rossy-en-Brie." "Guiche" is not mentioned elsewhere in this article. Is this person (?) somehow relevant? If Guiche's presence contributes something, then some some introduction or explanation is appropriate. If not, can Guiche be dropped? Why not simply "In April 1659, Eustache was invited to an Easter weekend party at the castle of Rossy-en-Brie." --Jdickinson (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I was just about to add this. It either needs expansion or deletion. Spiel (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Changed "Guiche" to Armand de Gramont, Comte de Guiche, here.  Done
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 07:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

What is going on in this article

This article starts out by saying the identity of this guy is unknown, then it refers to him as Eustache Dauger, and then at the very end says it's *not* Eustache Dauger. So which is it? - 23 February 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.129.129.77 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

There are two different aspects to the name "Eustache Dauger":

1. historically, the name given to the prisoner in the documents sent to Saint Mars—such as in the 28 July 1669 arrest warrant: "le nommé Eustache Dauger", which translates as "the named Eustache Dauger"—was deemed to be a pseudonym, and a succession of historians attempted to find out the prisoner's real identity;
2. in 1932, French historian Maurice Duvivier wondered if, instead, the name "Eustache Dauger" might not be that of a real person whose life and history could be traced. He therefore combed the archives for surnames such as Dauger, Daugers, d'Auger, d'Oger, d'Ogiers and similar forms, and discovered the family of "François d'Oger de Cavoye", who had several sons, including one named "Eustache" who did indeed sign his name as "Eustache Dauger de Cavoye", and whose dissolute early life is summarised in the present Wikipedia article. However, in the early 1950s, French historian Georges Mongrédien found documents confirming that this real "Eustache d'Oger (or Dauger) de Cavoye" was incarcerated at the Saint-Lazare prison in Paris in 1668 and that he was still there in 1680. So, as the article already explains, he therefore could not be the same person as the prisoner arrested under the pseudonym of "Eustache Dauger" in July 1669, and who remained incarcerated under Saint-Mars's uninterrupted guardianship in Pignerol, Exiles, Sainte-Marguerite, and finally at the Bastille until his death there on 19 November 1703. Mongrédien published these documents in the French magazine XVII^e siècle in the 1953 issue No. 17-18, pp. 55-58.

As I work my way through this article, I will aim to clarify the matter further, but I hope this helped for now.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 09:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

References