Myths really in Dumas’s novel “Three Musketeers”

Three Musketeers are one of the most famous and beloved by readers of historical books. We chose 5 facts from Dumas’s novel and decided to check their reliability.

The historical events of France of the 17th century are familiar in Russia to almost everyone - first of all, according to Alexander Dumas’s novel "Three Musketeers". However, Dumas did not come up with his hero: almost 150 years before him, he settled the story "Memoirs" Gasien de Curtil de Sandra. He claimed that he only brought into a literary type of record of the real d'Artagnan. However, historians insist that no genuine memoirs never existed, it was only a rich fantasy of Curtil, to which Dumas later added his own.

1. Is it true that d'Artagnan actually existed?

It depends on which side to see. The hero really had a real prototype-Gascon, who for some time served in the company of royal musketeers. But the similarity ends on this.

His full name is Charles Ozhze de Batz de Castelmore. The surname "d’Artagnan" belonged to his mother and ascended to the impoverished noble family, so the musketeer took her when he arrived in Paris.

As for the amazing adventures that Dumas attributed to this hero, then, as it turned out, he could not take part in them with all his desire. Since he was still a teenager at that time.

French scientist, researcher specializing in the history of the XVII century, author of the book True d’Artagnan Jean-Christian Ptifis Writes: “We should immediately stop believing in those scabies attributed to him by literary inspiration of Dumas, which belong to the first half of the reign of Louis XIII. We are talking about events related to the love of Anna of Austrian to the charming George Viliers, the Duke of Buckingham, the struggle against the terrible Cardinal Richelieu, about the siege of the la-rochelle ... At the time when all these events were deployed, Charles de Batz was still a teenager who fought with neighboring boys, slapped along the Lupiac and Lupiac and Lupaaku and Lupaaka and Lupa. Rashed bird nests in the forest. "

Dumas have a military career of d’Artagnan is rapid and brilliant, in life, like tells Poulfis, he managed to visit both the courier of Cardinal Mazarini, and the jailer of the finance of Fouke - the positions, although high and brought our hero the glory and trust of those in power, but not too honorable and not at all as well paid as the former musketeer could hope. He was also the governor of Lill, the very city where the executioner lived, who executed Milady in the book of Dumas.

However, at the end of his life, in 1672, D’Artagnan returns to full military service and takes part in the siege of Maastricht. There he receives the post of field marshal (something like Lieutenant General, and not Marshal of France, like Dumas)-and meets a heroic death.

Most of the truth

2. Is it true that Anna of Austrian had an affair with the Duke of Bakingem?

Here historians and contemporaries are quite unanimous: yes, it was. About this tells Anna's close friend of Austrian, philosopher Laroshfuko in his “memoirs”. For the first time, the story of diamond pendants appears there for the first time, which the queen so inadvertently gave the duke. True, unlike Dumas’s novel, not at all my lady at all at the request of the Cardinal, but the abandoned mistress of the Duke. Mentioned About this story in the memoirs and the valet of Queen La Porte.

The Duke of Backingham, according to contemporaries, for example, the same Laroshfuko, was a very attractive man. The queen was unhappy in marriage, so there is nothing surprising that when they met, a connection arose between them.

Of course, their novel did not go beyond letters and short -lived random meetings, since Anna Austrian was accompanied by a retinue almost all the time. 

However, despite the consent on the existence of a romantic connection between the queen and the duke, contemporaries in the memoirs diverge regarding her details. In the study, published The University of Chicago, the versions of the same meeting of Anna of Austrian and Buckingham are compared. So, La Porte tells in the memoirs about the brief date of lovers in Amieen’s gardens, and Laroshfuko, mentioning this meeting, already transfer it to the queen's chambers. And if the first version of the story can be considered quite innocent, then taking an outsider in the chambers is really already betrayal to the king.

Historian Sergei Nechaev, author of the book "Three D'Artagnan", calls The Duke’s love in the queen of one of the reasons for the war between France and England, supposedly Backingham said that if France is not pleased to accept him as the envoy of the world, he would enter it as a conqueror - including to see the queen. It is worth noting that Backingham had an exceptional influence in the English court, so that the military conflict could well initiate for his goals. Although, of course, it is doubtful that he was guided by only feelings.

Is it true

3. Is it true that Cardinal Richelieu was in love with Anna Austrian?

Historian, head of the laboratory of historical and cultural studies, the steps of the RANEPA Maria Neklyudova completely Rejects This version.

The story of the Cardinal's love in the queen for the first time Found At Laroshfuko. We repeat that it was he who told about the story with diamond pendants, which was stolen from the Duke of Backingham allegedly by the instigation of the cardinal. Nevertheless, historians believe that if Richelieu was the initiator of this intrigue, then the reason was not at all offended pride of the rejected lover, but the political motive: Cardinal was afraid that the queen would come into a conspiracy against France with the Duke of Backingham. This version, for example, adheres to The German historian and publicist Uve Schulz, the author of books on historical figures of that era, including the detailed biography of Cardinal Richelieu.

In addition, contemporaries noted that the cardinal was not at all distinguished by excellent health, so most likely Richelieu was not up to claims for the role of the queen's lover.

In addition, Laroshfuko experienced a deep personal hostility for the cardinal, so historians suggest not to trust his words 100%, since he could easily invent this story in order to pole the queen and, on the contrary, put the cardinal in the bad light.

Not true

4. Is it true that there was enmity between the musketeers of the king and the guardsmen?

For the first time, the version of the unnecessary enmity between the musketeers of the king and the guards of the cardinal is found in the "memoirs" of Gasienn de Curtil de Sandra. D’Artagnan in the book of Curtil himself tells About this enmity: "There was such a jealousy between the company of the musketeers and the company of the guardsmen of the Cardinal de Richelieu that they were grasped daily."

Jean-Christian Ptifis too He thinksThat between the guards and musketeers there were rivalry and hostility, sometimes reaching the bloody skirmishes in the evenings, when the military busted each other on the dark streets of Paris.

Historian Sergei Nechaev, however, Puts This version is doubtful, because, in his opinion, the king and cardinal made up the perfect example of dual power, there was no enmity between them, which means there was no reason for hostility and their troops. Neither the king nor the cardinal simply would allow his military to enmity seriously. In addition, that the guards, that the musketeers were, in fact, guards - with similar functions, duties and even form. There were frequent cases of the transition of nobles from guards to musketeers and vice versa. They had no serious reasons for enmity.

Nevertheless, Nechaev notes that the rivalry was still - to the extent that it happens in any army between representatives of various branches of the troops.

Most of the untruth

5. Is it true that Cardinal Richelieu personally commanded the army?

Historians They saythat for the clergy at that time the command of the troops was not something exceptional. Nevertheless, during the siege of La Roshel, the king not only instructed the cardinal to lead one of the military units, but completely gave the command. Historian Maria Neklyudova Notesthat as a spiritual face, Richelieu could not personally participate in the battle and kill people. Nevertheless, he was a talented commander and made strategic decisions - and this did not contradict his spiritual dignity at all. Although this required permission from the Vatican.

In the case of La Roshel, the cardinal had to lead the troops also because the fortress was occupied by the Huguenots, the French professing Protestantism. The king did not want to look as if he oppressed his subjects, but from the side of the Catholic cardinal, the siege of the fortress looked quite appropriate, Notes Neklyudova.

Is it true

What do our verdicts mean?

Read on the topic:

1. D’Artagnan and three Louidors: how much they earned and spent musketeers
2. Is it true that Duma-father is Pushkin staging his death?