Iron Mask - the most mysterious prisoner of the era of Louis XIV remained in history under this name. All that is reliably known about this man is the number under which he was registered in the Bastille (64489001). Presumably, he was born in the 40s of the 17th century. He was kept in different prisons. In 1698 he was finally placed in the Bastille, where he died.
Historical information
In fact, prisoner No. 64489001 did not wear an iron mask, but only a velvet mask. It was supposed to hide his identity from outsiders, but in no way serve as a means of torture (like an iron one). Even the guards themselves did not know what kind of criminal was wearing this mask. Its mystery gradually became the reason for the emergence of numerous legends and speculations.
The prisoner in the iron mask was first mentioned in the Secret Notes of the Persian Court, published in Amsterdam in 1745. The author of the notes indicates that under number 64489001 the illegitimate son of the royal Louis XIV and his beloved, the Duchess de La Vallière, was kept in the casemate. He bore the title of Count of Vermandois. In conclusion, he was caught for slapping his brother, the Grand Dauphin.
This version is absolutely untenable, since the real Count of Vermandois died at the age of 16 in 1683. Before that, he managed to take part in the war with Spain, so he simply did not have time for such a long imprisonment. Jesuit Griffe, who served as a confessor at the Bastille, recorded that the mysterious prisoner was first brought to the Bastille in 1698, and he died in 1703.
Elder brother or twin of Louis XIV
Later, Francois Voltaire suggested that the gentleman in the iron mask could be the half-brother of Louis XIV himself. The king did not need rivals, so he imprisoned his brother in the Bastille, having previously obliged him to wear a mask on his face. Obviously, all the mystery that surrounded this prisoner could be connected with this. Voltaire expressed this conjecture in his 1751 work “The Age of Louis XIV.”
Anne of Austria for a long time was considered infertile. Then she gave birth to an illegitimate son, after which the legitimate heir to the throne, Louis XIV, was born. The latter, having learned about the presence of an older brother, decided to end his life. In addition, there were rumors that Louis himself was not the king’s own son. This called into question his right to the crown.
Execute the son of the French queen and sibling Louis XIV could not, so he chose to imprison the unfortunate young man forever. Wearing a mask is a way to hide a secret that could cause a coup. History has not preserved the name of this supposed older brother.
There have also been speculations that the Iron Mask is actually the twin brother of Louis XIV. The appearance of male twins among the royal couple spontaneously gave rise to a lot of problems with the succession to the throne. One of the queen's sons had to be sacrificed in order to maintain stability in the country. The boy was raised secretly. Having matured, Louis XIV learned about his twin brother, who looked like him like a reflection in a mirror. Fearing for his crown, Louis ordered the elimination of his rival.
Ercole Mattioli
The fourth version was the assumption that the famous Italian adventurer Ercole Antonio Mattioli was hiding under the mask. In 1678, an agreement was concluded between him and Louis XIV: Mattioli undertook to persuade his overlord to give the king the fortress of Casale. The Italian successfully sold this state secret to several countries for a substantial reward. For this he was sentenced to life imprisonment by the French government.
General Bulond
The reason for the emergence of another version was the secret notes of Louis XIV. The French king kept encrypted diaries, which were deciphered several centuries later by the famous cryptographer Etienne Bazerie. It turned out that the masked prisoner could also be the French general Vivien de Bulonde, who covered himself and France with indelible shame in one of the battles of the Nine Years' War. This version, like all others, has not been proven 100%.
The real Peter I
Various historians and researchers, intrigued by the great mystery, continued to put forward all sorts of versions regarding the identity of the prisoner in the iron mask. Most historians came to the conclusion that it could have been one of the conspirators who dared to take aim at royal power. Among them: the Lorraine Armoise, the royal minister Fouquet, Cardinal Mazarin, etc.
Another version even concerned Russia. According to it, Peter I himself, and the true tsar, was imprisoned in the Bastille. In 1698 - precisely when prisoner No. 64489001 appeared in the Bastille - the Russian Tsar was allegedly replaced. Peter I was then carrying out a diplomatic mission (“Grand Embassy”) in Europe.
The true, Orthodox Russian Tsar, who sacredly revered traditions, went abroad. The European returned, dressed in a “basurman dress” and with a whole bunch of innovations wild for patriarchal Rus'. After this, they began to say that Peter the Great had been replaced abroad with an impostor. This substitution was later associated with the Iron Mask. It is still not known who actually wore it.
The events of November 20, 1703 still attract historians today. On this day, a prisoner was secretly buried in the cemetery near St. Paul's Church, who went by the name Iron Mask in the prison registry. Until now, researchers are speculating about what kind of personality was hidden behind the mask.
Charlotte Elisabeth of Bavaria d'Orléans
Rumors about the mysterious Iron Mask began to spread during the reign of Louis XIV, and they were spread by the widow of the Duke of Orleans, Charlotte Elizabeth of Bavaria. She claimed that for a number of years a strange prisoner in an iron mask was held in the Bastille and died.
Bastille
These rumors gave rise to many speculations about the identity of the prisoner, some suggested that he was an English lord who was involved in a conspiracy against the English king William III.
Louise de La Valliere
In 1745, the book “Secret Notes on the History of Persia” by an unknown author was published, which further concentrated rumors around the identity of the mysterious prisoner. The book tells the story of the tragic fate of the hero Giafer, who was the illegitimate son of Shah Abas, in whom the image of Louis XIV was recognizable. Giafer slapped his half-brother Sefi Mirza (Grand Dauphin) and was imprisoned for life in the Bastille as punishment.
Louise de La Vallière and her children from Louis XIV Mademoiselle de Blois and Count of Vermandois
If you believe the book, then the prisoner was the Count of Vermandois - the great French admiral - the illegitimate son of Louis XIV and his favorite Louise de La Vallière.
Anne of Austria, Maria Theresa and Dauphin Louis
The image of the Iron Mask troubled the minds of the great French. Thus, in 1751, Voltaire wrote the book “The Age of Louis XIV,” in which he reveals the story of a mysterious prisoner who was forced to wear an iron mask for the rest of his life. The book immediately became a bestseller. And only twenty years later Voltaire revealed the secret of the iron mask to readers. It turned out that under the mask was hidden the elder brother of Louis XIV, the son of Anne of Austria and her favorite. The Iron Mask became the main character in the works of J. Chancel de Lagrange, Seneca de Millan, A. Griffe, Abbot Papon, S. Lenge and others.
Voltaire
Voltaire, by revealing the secret of the Iron Mask, caused swipe by the prestige of the royal family. And in 1775, by order of the Parisian minister Amelo, in order to conceal the secret, a special 120th sheet, which described the history of the prisoner’s admission to prison, was removed and destroyed from the Bastille. This fact further removed the mystery from being solved.
Cardinal Mazarin
Born at the end of the 18th century a new version about the Iron Mask. According to her, there were twin brothers - the children of the Queen of France. The real son of Louis XIII was allegedly imprisoned in the fortress, and the throne was taken by the son of Anne of Austria and Cardinal Mazarin.
Napoleon Bonaparte
This assumption refuted the right of the Bourbon throne, starting with Louis XIV. This hypothesis suited the supporters of Napoleon Bonaparte, who claimed in 1801 that Napoleon was a descendant of the Iron Mask.
Storming of the Bastille
In 1789, the famous Taking of the Bastille took place, and then the archives of the prison were made public. It turned out that the man in the Iron Mask was brought to the Bastille by the governor of Saint-Mars from the island of Sainte-Marguerite, where he was in the company of eight other political criminals in the fortress of Pignerol. Saint-Mars at that time was the commandant of the Pignerol fortress and served under the command of Charles de Bas Castelmore (we recognize d'Artagnan).
Louis XIV
It turned out that the Iron Mask was one of these eight. The research process was further complicated by the fact that each of the prisoners was named not by name, but by a conventional nickname. It turned out that one of the eight was Count Lozen, who was later released.
Queen Maria Theresa of Austria
Throughout the 19th century, the issue of establishing the identity of the Iron Mask was studied by a whole team of scientists and historians, and interest in this topic did not wane in the 20th century. New works by A. Lang, M. Duvivier, J. Mongredien, playwright M. Pagnol. In 1970, books by P.-J. were published. Arreza "Iron Mask" Finally a solved riddle” and J.-C. Ptifis "Iron Mask - the most mysterious prisoner in history." The book by P.-M. became sensational. Dijols Nabo or the Iron Mask" in 1978. The author is convinced that the servant of Queen Maria Theresa, the Moor Nabo, was hiding under the mask.
The mystery of the Iron Mask has worried various writers for centuries: N. Karamzin, A. de Vigny, A.S. Pushkin, V. Hugo, A. Dumas the father, P. Moreau, A. Decaux, J. Bordoneva.
IN different time Based on the same facts, writers and historians, librarians and scientists tried to defend completely different hypotheses, which confirmed that the mystery of the Iron Mask has not yet been solved.
S. TSVETKOV.
Science and life // Illustrations
A color etching by Paul Jacob Lamini (19th century) depicts the storming of the Bastille, where a prisoner under the name “Iron Mask” once languished.
Louis XIV. Many associated the fate of the unfortunate secret prisoner of the Bastille with his name.
The Palace of Versailles, built at the behest of the “Sun King,” became the residence of Louis XIV, displacing the Louvre.
Madame de Montespan, favorite of Louis XIV.
François Marie Arouet Voltaire (1736 lithograph from a portrait of Latour) was the “father” of the hypothesis according to which the Iron Mask was considered the brother of Louis XIV.
English King Charles II. Miniature from 1665.
King Louis XIV opens the French Academy in Paris.
The mystery of the prisoner who went down in history under the name “Iron Mask” has worried people for centuries. Very little reliable information has been preserved about the most unusual prisoner of the Bastille. It is known, for example, that at the beginning of 1679 in the Pignerol prison there was a prisoner from whom a black velvet mask of the Venetian type with iron clasps (then turned by legend into an iron one) was never removed. The respectful treatment of him makes one think about the noble origin of the prisoner. In prison, he maintained the habits of an aristocrat, wore fine linen, loved an elegant table, and played music, playing the guitar quite well.
A few years later, the commandant of the Pignerol Saint-Mars fortress, having received an appointment to the islands of Saint Margaret, brought with him a secret prisoner. And on September 18, 1698, again together with Saint-Mars, who became the commandant of the Bastille, the unknown person found himself within its walls, which he did not leave until his death in 1703. In the Bastille, he was first given a separate room, but on March 6, 1701, he found himself in the same room with Domenic François Tirmont, accused of witchcraft and molestation of young girls; On April 30 of the same year, Jean Alexandre de Rocorville, guilty of “pronouncing anti-government speeches,” was moved in with them, all on the orders of the king. Apparently, from the words of these people, the legend of the Iron Mask then spread. It is noteworthy that the mysterious prisoner himself did not say a word to his cellmates about who he was and for what crime he was doomed to eternal incognito.
After the death of the Iron Mask, the room in which he lived was thoroughly searched, the walls were scraped and re-whitened, the furniture was burned, and the gold and silver dishes were melted down. Obviously, the authorities were afraid that the prisoner might have hidden some piece of paper somewhere or scrawled a few words in a secluded place about the secret of his imprisonment.
The famous prisoner was seen as the most different persons. In fact, any noble person who lived in the 17th century and about whose death there was no reliable information was immediately nominated by some historian as a candidate for the role of the Iron Mask. Let us briefly consider the most popular versions, which at different times seemed to be the final solution to this historical riddle.
The first place, of course, belongs to the hypothesis that tries to prove (or, rather, believes) in the existence of a brother of Louis XIV, hidden under a mask for reasons of state. Its father can be considered Voltaire, who in his work “The Age of Louis XIV” (1751) wrote: “The Iron Mask was the brother and, without a doubt, the elder brother of Louis XIV...” The hypothesis owes its popularity to the brilliant pen of Dumas the Father - that’s it “ hanging on the nail” is the plot of “The Vicomte de Bragelonne”. Among professional historians, this legend has long lost all credibility - in the 19th century it was shared only by Jules Michelet, a French historian, and after him - no one else. Its disadvantages include, first of all, the lack of reliable written evidence: all existing ones, as it turned out, are apocryphal. (For example, the once famous story of the “Governor of the Iron Mask”: “The unfortunate prince, whom I raised and cherished until the end of my days, was born on September 5, 1638 at eight and a half o’clock in the evening, during the king’s dinner. His brother, now reigning (Louis XIV. - Note ed.), was born in the morning at noon, during his father’s lunch”, etc.). This story is contained in the so-called notes of Marshal Richelieu, published by a certain Sulavi, but to which, however, the marshal himself had nothing to do.
The system of evidence given in favor of this version is flawed, since it violates the principle of the English philosopher William of Ockham: “Entities should not be multiplied beyond what is necessary.” In other words, no one will ever explain the mystery of the Iron Mask by the existence of the brother of Louis XIV until it is proven that the latter actually had a brother. In general, the words of Montesquieu apply to this version: “There are things that everyone talks about because they were once said.”
During the period of the First Empire, a variation of this version arose, according to which Louis XIII, in addition to the legal heir - the future Louis XIV - had an illegitimate son, who was eliminated after the death of his father by his half-brother. On the islands of St. Margaret, where he was exiled, he allegedly became friends with the jailer’s daughter, who bore him a son. When the masked prisoner was later transported to the Bastille, his young son was sent to Corsica, giving him the surname Buonaparte, which means “from the good side,” “from good parents.” This story was supposed to prove that imperial crowns do not fall by themselves on the heads of artillery lieutenants.
Let's move on to the next contender - the Count of Vermandois, the natural son of Louis XIV and Mademoiselle de La Vallière.
In 1745, “Secret Notes on the History of Persia” was published in Amsterdam, in which the anecdotal history of the French court was told under fictitious (“Persian”) names. By the way, they said that the padishah Sha-Abbas (Louis XIV) had two sons: the legitimate Sedzh-Mirza (Louis, Dauphin) and the illegitimate Giafer (Count of Vermandois). And so “Jiafer once forgot himself to such an extent that he slapped Sedzh-Mirza.” State Council spoke in favor of the death penalty for Giafer, who inflicted a grave insult on the prince of the blood. Then Sha-Abbas, who dearly loved Jiafer, listened to the advice of one minister: he sent his offending son into the army and announced his sudden death on the road, but in fact hid him in his castle. Subsequently, Giafer, keeping the secret of his disappearance, moved from fortress to fortress, and when he needed to see people, he put on a mask.
The book by the anonymous author immediately became popular in Paris, temporarily eclipsing other hypotheses about the Iron Mask. However, painstaking research has shown that not a single memoirist of the era of Louis XIV said a word about the insult inflicted on the Dauphin by the Count of Vermandois. In addition, the official date of the count's death (which, according to this version, should correspond to the date of his disappearance) - November 18, 1683 - does not allow him to be in Pignerol in 1679 as the Iron Mask.
The writer Saint-Foy saw in the Iron Mask Duke James of Monmouth, the son of the English king Charles II (he ascended the throne after the death of Cromwell in 1658) and the courtesan Lucy Walters. The king loved this son dearly. The illegitimate prince, raised Protestant, lived in the palace, had pages and servants, and during his travels he was accepted as a member of the royal family. As an adult, he received the title of Duke of Monmouth and became the first man at court.
Charles II had no legitimate children, and therefore the Duke of York, who was extremely unpopular among the people for his adherence to Catholicism, was considered the heir to the throne. Rumors spread throughout the country that the Duke of Monmouth was no less a legitimate heir than the Duke of York, since Charles II allegedly had a secret marriage with Lucy Walters, etc. The Duke of York began to look at Monmouth as a dangerous rival, and he had to leave for Holland. Here he met the news of the death of Charles II and the accession of the Duke of York under the name of James II.
On July 11, 1685, Monmouth, accompanied by 80 people, landed near the small port of Lima, on the Dorsetshire coast. Unfurling the blue banner, he boldly entered the city. He was greeted with delight. From all sides, those dissatisfied with the new king flocked to the place of his landing to greet the “good duke, the Protestant duke, the rightful heir to the throne.” A few days later, at least six thousand people gathered under his leadership. The army was followed by a huge crowd of people who had no weapons.
However, after the first successes, a streak of failures followed. London did not support the applicant. The expedition to Scotland failed. The aristocracy did not side with the former idol. But parliament did not proclaim him king.
Monmouth fell into complete despair. In the battle with the royal army at Sedgemoor, he fled, abandoning his soldiers, who shouted after him: “Shells, for God’s sake, shells!” A few days later, the Portman police detained him near Ringwood: Monmouth, dressed in rags, surrendered without a word, trembling all over.
During the investigation and trial of him, Monmouth showed undignified cowardice: having asked the king for an audience, he lay at his feet and kissed his hands and knees, begging for mercy... James II behaved no better. By agreeing to meet with the prisoner, he thereby gave him hope for pardon and, according to tradition, had to save his life. But the king demanded the death sentence, and on July 16, 1685, Monmouth was executed in London in front of thousands of people. The executioner cut off his head only with the fourth blow, for which he was almost torn to pieces by the crowd who idolized the “good Protestant Duke.”
Saint-Foy tried to argue that Monmouth's royal birth alone should have protected him from the death penalty, and therefore the Duke was in fact sent to France, and another man was executed in his place. But no matter how hard the writer tried, his version remained the most unconvincing of all that existed. This, of course, does not mean that it is not suitable as the basis for an action-packed novel...
The mysterious disappearance of the Duke de Beaufort gave Lagrange-Chancel and Langlais-Dufres the occasion to create a system of evidence in favor of his candidacy for the role of the Iron Mask.
The Duke de Beaufort was the grandson of Henry IV and Gabriela d'Estre. His athletic build, expressive facial features, immoderate gestures, the habit of akimbo, always curled mustache - all this gave him a very defiant appearance. Without receiving any education, he remained a complete ignoramus in everything sciences, including the science of secular life - the court laughed at the rudeness of his manners and language, but the army idolized him for his desperate courage.
With the beginning of the Fronde (a movement in France against absolutism represented by the government of Cardinal Mazarin), he rushed headlong into it. But he played a rather pitiful role in its events, because he himself did not really know what cause he actually stood for. But with his swaggering behavior and rude soldierly speech, he was extremely popular with the common people, for which he earned the nickname “king of the markets.”
As soon as Louis XIV reigned, Beaufort became the most obedient of his subjects. In 1669, he was appointed commander-in-chief of an expeditionary force sent to the shores of Candia to clear the island of the Turks. Twenty-two military battleships and three galleys carried seven thousand troops - the flower of the French nobility (in some ways, the Candia expedition was a new crusade). Candia was once ruled by the Venetians. By the time of the events described, only the largest city of the island remained in their hands, which they defended against a numerically superior enemy at the cost of incredible efforts. One bastion had already been taken by the Turks, and the townspeople expected the fall of the city and inevitable massacre any day now.
On the night of June 25, the French squadron that had arrived the day before landed troops on the island. Beaufort personally commanded one of the detachments. The Turks could not withstand the onslaught and fled. But at a moment when Beaufort's soldiers were already anticipating complete victory, a powder magazine with 25 thousand pounds of gunpowder exploded - it destroyed an entire battalion of French on the spot. The monstrous explosion caused panic in their ranks - the soldiers felt that the entire Turkish camp had been mined. In one minute the roles changed: now the French were rushing headlong to the shore, to their boats, and the perked-up Turks were pressing on them, not allowing them to come to their senses.
During the flight, everyone somehow forgot about Beaufort. Some of the fugitives later vaguely recalled that the duke, riding a wounded horse, seemed to be trying to gather brave men around him to repel the Turkish onslaught. When the panic subsided, they missed Beaufort, but he was not among the survivors, nor among the killed, nor among the wounded, nor among the prisoners... The commander-in-chief disappeared without a trace.
The above-mentioned authors - supporters of identifying the Duke de Beaufort with the Iron Mask - insisted that he was kidnapped during a general panic by Maulevrier, the brother of Colbert, who was at enmity with the Duke. But the later published correspondence between Maulevrier and his brother refuted this argument. In the very first letter sent to Versailles after the unsuccessful landing, Maulevrier writes: “Nothing can be more pitiable than the unfortunate fate of the admiral (Beaufort. - Note ed.). Being obliged to rush in different directions during the entire attack in order to collect everything that remained of our troops, I positively asked everyone about Beaufort, and no one could tell me anything.” And Beaufort’s age (he was born in 1616) does not correspond well with the age of the Iron Mask (Voltaire said that he heard “from Marsolan, the son-in-law of the Bastille apothecary, that the latter, some time before the death of the disguised prisoner, heard from him that he was about sixty years").
It is impossible even briefly to dwell on all the versions explaining the identity and crimes of the Iron Mask. Let me just say that they saw him as an illegitimate son: Cromwell; Marie Louise of Orléans, first wife of the Spanish King Charles II; Maria Anna of Neuburg, second wife of the same king; Henrietta of Orleans and Louis XIV; her and the Comte de Guiche; Maria Theresa, wife of Louis XIV, and the black servant she brought with her from Spain; Christina, Queen of Sweden, and her great equerry, Monaldesque. They said that a woman could be hiding under the mask.
These legends occupied secular society so much that even Louis XIV, Louis XV and Louis XVI were rumored to be interested in the Iron Mask and allegedly revealed an extraordinary secret to each other on their deathbeds - the historian Michelet insisted on this. The Duke of Choiseul said that when he asked who was hiding under the iron mask, Louis XV replied: “If you knew his real name, you would be very disappointed, it is not at all interesting.” And Madame Pompadour assured that in response to a similar question, the king said: “This is the minister of the Italian prince.”
Finally, Louis XVI ordered Minister Maurepas to clarify this mystery. After conducting an investigation, Maurepas reported to the king that the Iron Mask was a dangerous intriguer, a subject of the Duke of Mantua.
Fundamental research by French and Italian historians late XIX- the beginning of the 20th century (Tapena, F. Brentano, A. Sorel) confirm that Maurepas most likely told the truth: the famous prisoner was Count Ercole Antonio Matteoli, minister of Charles IV, Duke of Mantua.
Charles IV was distinguished by his riotous behavior and complete indifference to the affairs of the state. He spent most of the year in Venice, and his favorites ruled in Mantua. The Duke very quickly exhausted his treasury and his health, but retained an insatiable thirst for pleasure. In search of money, he was ready to sell anything.
Abbé Estrad, then Louis XIV's ambassador to Venice, took advantage of Charles's chronic lack of money to perform an important service for his government. He set out to force the Duke to sell Louis the city of Casale, which was the key to Upper Italy. The enterprising abbot's plan promised the king the opportunity to intervene in Italian affairs at any time and counteract the similar desire of Spain and Austria. However, the scandalous purchase, contrary to the norms international law and affecting the interests of many powers, had to be carried out in the strictest secrecy. Looking for an intermediary for this transaction among the duke's favorites, Estrad settled on Matteoli, as the person with the greatest influence on Charles.
Matteoli was born into a well-born and rich family Bologna December 1, 1640. Already as a student, he gained some fame, receiving the highest award in civil law, and after graduation, the title of professor at the University of Bologna. Having become related to a venerable senatorial family in Bologna, he moved to Mantua, where he gained the favor of Charles IV, who made him a supernumerary senator, a title that conferred the dignity of count. The extremely ambitious Matteoli was aiming for the position of first minister. But for this, he was looking for an opportunity to provide the Duke with some extraordinary service and joyfully seized on Estrada’s offer.
It was decided to arrange a secret meeting between Estrada and Karl in Venice, during the carnival - the holiday made it possible to wear a mask without attracting attention. At midnight on March 13, 1678, while leaving the Doge's Palace, Estrad and Charles met, as if by chance, in the square and discussed the terms of the treaty for an hour. The Duke agreed to cede Casale for 100 thousand crowns, so that this amount would be paid to him upon the exchange of ratified treaties in two terms, after three months each. So this shameful deal took place in the very center of Venice - a city that has long been famous for its spies and whose government did its best to prevent French penetration into Northern Italy!
A few months later, Matteoli, who secretly arrived at Versailles, received a copy of the treaty signed by the king. Immediately after this, he had a secret audience with Louis and was received in the most favorable manner: the king presented him with a valuable diamond and ordered him to give 400 double louis, promising an even larger sum after the ratification of the treaty by the duke.
It seemed that nothing could prevent the successful conclusion of the negotiations. However, less than two months after Matteoli’s visit to Versailles, the courts of Turin, Madrid, Vienna, Milan, the Venetian Republic, that is, everyone who benefited from preventing the deal, learned in the smallest detail about the terms of the agreement. Estrade notified Louis that he had undeniable evidence of Matteoli's betrayal.
Now it is no longer possible to say with certainty what was the reason for Matteoli’s act: self-interest or belated patriotism. It seems that the successful outcome of the negotiations promised him, if not more benefits, then at least less trouble.
Louis had to call it quits at the moment when a detachment of French troops led by the new commandant was ready to enter Casale. In addition to understandable annoyance, the king was tormented by the thought of a possible international scandal, since Matteoli still had ratification documents with personal signature Louis. To get them back, Estrad proposed capturing Matteoli. The king replied in a dispatch dated April 28, 1679: “His Majesty would like you to carry out your idea and order him to be taken secretly to Pignerol. An order is sent there to receive and maintain him so that no one knows about it... There is no need to notify the Duchess of Savoy about this order of His Majesty, but it is necessary that no one knows what will happen to this man.” These words, full of cold hatred towards the one who almost made the “Sun King” the laughing stock of the whole world, contain the whole further fate Matteoli - Iron Mask. On May 2, he was captured “without noise” during a meeting with Estrada in a village near Turin and transported to Pignerol.
There were no papers incriminating the French government with him, but under threat of torture Matteoli admitted that he had given them to his father. He was forced to write a letter in his own hand, according to which agent Estrada freely received from Matteoli Sr. these important documents, which were immediately forwarded to Versailles.
Even earlier, Louis secretly withdrew his troops from the Italian border, and thus all traces of the scandalous deal with the Duke of Mantua disappeared. Matteoli remained, but, as we have seen, the king made sure that he too disappeared.
Estrada spread the rumor that Matteoli was the victim of a traffic accident. Charles IV pretended to believe this explanation, because he himself wanted to quickly hush up the shameful story. The Matteoli family remained silent: his wife went to a monastery, his father soon died. None of them made the slightest attempt to find out more about his fate, as if feeling the danger of such searches.
All concerns about maintaining Matteoli's incognito were entrusted to the commandant of the Pignerol Saint-Mars prison: from that time on, they became, as it were, prisoners of each other.
As the historian Tapin aptly notes, prisoners have no history. We only know that Matteoli, after two unsuccessful attempts to make himself known, completely resigned himself to his fate. Tapin in his book did not ignore the question of where the notorious mask came from and why the captive Saint-Mars was hidden under it.
In the 16th-17th centuries, the custom of wearing masks was widespread among the nobility, of which there are many historical examples. Gerard's memoirs describe how Louis XIII, who came on a date with Maria Mancini, “kissed her through the mask.” The Duchess of Montespan allowed her ladies-in-waiting to wear masks - she writes about this in her memoirs. Saint-Simon testifies that Marshal Clerambault “always wore a black velvet mask on the roads and in the galleries.” Police reports from the Parisian police chief Rainy indicate that in 1683, the wives of bankers and merchants dared to wear masks even to church, despite the strict prohibition of the authorities.
Thus, the unusualness of the Iron Mask case lies only in the fact that the mask was put on a prisoner, of which there is really no example in history French prisons. However, says Tapin, for the Italian Matteoli, using a mask was completely natural. In Italy, masks were often worn on prisoners. Thus, in Venice, persons arrested by the Inquisition were transported to prison wearing masks. Matteoli, a partner in the Duke of Mantua's amusements, undoubtedly had a mask with him, under which he hid during negotiations with Estrada. “Of course,” writes Tapin, “she was among his things captured in 1678...”
The question of why Matteoli was put on a mask when he was transported to the Bastille is resolved quite simply: Matteoli lived in Paris for several months during his secret visit to France in 1678 and, therefore, could have been recognized. In addition, in 1698, that is, when Saint-Mars brought him with him to the Bastille, an Italian, Count Baselli, who was familiar with many noble families Mantua and Bologna and, no doubt, knowing Matteoli by sight. To keep the secret of the abduction of the Mantuan senator, Saint-Mars used a means exclusive to everyone except the Italian Matteoli. That is why the latter calmly wore a mask, while everyone who saw him was burning with excitement and curiosity.
There are two entries in the Bastille garrison log relating to the Iron Mask. The first reads: “The Governor of the Islands of Saint-Marguerite Saint-Mars, on September 18, 1698, took office as commandant of the Bastille and brought with him an unknown prisoner in a black velvet mask, who, even before arriving on the islands, was kept under surveillance in the fortress of Pignerol.” The second entry, dated November 19, 1703, says that on this day “an unknown prisoner in a velvet mask, whom Saint-Mars always carried with him, died unexpectedly.”
Saint-Mars included the deceased in the lists of the Church of St. Paul under the name Marteoli (as, by the way, Matteoli was often called by Louvois in his dispatches to Saint-Mars). It is likely that over the years the commandant forgot the name of his prisoner or made a typo - at that time names were often spelled incorrectly, especially foreign ones.
Literature
Ladoucette E. The Iron Mask (novel). - M., 1992.
Ptifis J.-C. Iron mask. - M., 2006.
Topin M. The Man in the Iron Mask. - Paris, 1870 (there is a pre-revolutionary translation into Russian).
Rice. 1. False Peter the First and my reading of the inscriptions on his portrait
I borrowed the portrait from a video film where the Announcer says: “ But in another of his engravings, as in all subsequent portraits of other artists, we see a completely different person, unlike his relatives. It would seem absurd!
But the strangeness doesn’t end there either. In engravings and portraits of 1698, this man looks more like a 20-year-old youth. However, in Dutch and German portraits of 1697, the same person looks more like 30 years old.
How could this happen?»
I begin an epigraphic analysis of this portrait. A hint as to where to look for certain inscriptions is provided by the two previous portraits. First I read the inscription on the brooch attached to the headdress, which says: MIM YAR RURIK. In other words, this is another priest of Yar Rurik, although there is no signature of KHARAON. It may very well be that the absence of this highest spiritual title means that this priest did not recognize the spiritual priority of Rurik, although formally he was his priest. In this case, he was very suitable for the role of Peter's double.
Then I read the inscriptions on the fur collar on the left, above the white frame: TEMPLE OF MARY YAR. I consider this inscription as a continuation of the previous one. And inside the fragment, surrounded by a white frame, I read the words in reverse color: MOSCOW MARY 865 YAR (YEAR). Moscow Mary meant Veliky Novgorod; however, already the first Romanov introduced real Christianity, and Patriarch Nikon under Alexei Mikhailovich eliminated all remnants of Russian Vedism from Muscovy. Consequently, Russian Vedists partly go to the Russian hinterland, partly move into the Russian diaspora in neighboring states. And the year 865 of Yar is 1721 AD , this is more than 70 years after Nikon’s reforms. By this time, the places of priests were no longer occupied by children, but by grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the priests removed by Nikon, and grandchildren and great-grandchildren often no longer speak the speech of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers. But perhaps the year of the final design of this engraving, which was begun in 1698, is shown. But even in this case, the young man depicted is 6-8 years younger than Peter.
And on the very bottom fragment, under the frame on the fur collar on the left, I read the word MASK. Then I read the inscription on the fur collar on the right: the top of the collar, diagonally, contains the inscription ANATOLY FROM Rus' MARY, and the line below - 35 ARKONA YARA. But the 35th Arkona Yara is the same as Moscow Mary, this is Veliky Novgorod. In other words, one of the ancestors of this Anatoly in the middle of the 17th century could actually have been a priest in this city, whereas after Nikon’s reforms he ended up somewhere in the Russian diaspora. It is possible that in Catholic Poland, which very diligently followed all the decrees of the Pope.
Rice. 2. Portrait of Peter by an unknown artist of the late 18th century
So, we now know that the young man with bulging eyes was not Peter at all, but Anatoly; in other words, the replacement of the king was documented.
We see that this portrait was painted in Veliky Novgorod. But apart from the name of False Peter, this portrait did not bring any details, and, in addition, the artist was not even named, so this portrait was not entirely acceptable as an evidentiary document, which forced me to look for other canvases. And soon the desired portrait was found: “ Peter the Great, Emperor of All Russia, portrait of an unknown late artist18th century". Below I will show why the artist turned out to be unknown.
Epigraphic analysis of the second portrait of False Peter.
I chose this particular image of Peter, because on his silk baldric I read the word YARA at the bottom, deciding that the portrait belonged to the brush of the artist of their temple, Yara. And I was not mistaken. The letters were inscribed both in individual parts of the face and in the folds of clothing.
Rice. 3. My reading of the inscriptions on the portrait of Peter in Fig. 2
It is clear that if I suspected the presence of Russian inscriptions on the blue silk ribbon, then I started reading from there. True, since in direct color these letters are not visible in very contrasting, I switch to reverse color. And here you can see the inscription in very large letters: TEMPLE YAR, and on the collar there is an inscription MASK. This confirmed my preliminary reading. In modern reading this means: IMAGE FROM THE TEMPLE OF YAR .
And then I moved on to reading the inscriptions on parts of the face. First - on right side faces, on the left from the viewer's point of view. On the lower strands of hair (I rotated this fragment 90 degrees to the right, clockwise). Here I read the words: MASK OF THE TEMPLE OF RURIK. In other words, IMAGE FROM THE TEMPLE OF RURIK .
On the hair above the forehead you can read the words: MIM OF THE TEMPLE OF RURIK. Finally, on the right from the viewer's point of view, on the left side of the face, one can read MASK OF ANATOLIUS FROM RURIK JAR JUTLAND. Firstly, it is confirmed that False Peter’s name was Anatoly, and, secondly, it turned out that he did not come from Holland, as many researchers assumed, but from neighboring Denmark. However, moving from one country to another at the end of the 17th century apparently did not pose a big problem.
Next, I move on to reading the inscription on the mustache. Here you can read the words: RIMA MIM. In other words, Danish by birth and Dutch by language, he was an agent of Roman influence. For the umpteenth time, the final center of action against Rus'-Russia is Rome!
But is it possible to verify this statement? - I'm looking at the armor on right hand, as well as the background behind the hand. However, for ease of reading, I rotate this fragment to the right by 90 degrees (clockwise). And here on the background in the form of fur you can read the words: MASK OF THE TEMPLE OF ROME And RIMA MIM Rus' ROME. In other words, that before us is really an image not of the Emperor of Rus', but of a priest of Rome! And on the armor the arms can be read on every two plates: RIMA MIM. RIMA MIM.
Finally, on the fur collar next to the left hand you can read the words: RURIK RIMA MIM.
Thus, it becomes clear that the temples of Rurik existed back in the 18th century, and their priests, when creating portraits of deceased people (usually the priests of the Temple of Mary did this), usually wrote their titles, as well as names. This is exactly what we saw in this portrait. However, in Christian country(where Christianity has been the official religion for more than a century) it was unsafe to advertise the existence of Vedic temples, which is why the artist of this portrait remained unknown.
Rice. 4. Rurik’s death mask and my reading of the inscriptions
Death mask of Peter.
Then I decided to look at foreign sites on the Internet. In the article, I read the “Great Embassy” section with interest. In particular, it said: “ His Grand Embassy, numbering 250 participants, left Moscow in March 1697. Peter became the first king to travel outside his kingdom. The official purpose of the embassy was to give new breath to the coalition against the Ottoman Empire. However, Peter made no secret of the fact that he went to “observe and learn”, and also to select foreign specialists for his new Russia. In the then Swedish city of Riga, the king was allowed to inspect the fortress, but to his greatest surprise, he was not allowed to take measurements. In Courland (the current region of the coast of Lithuania and Latvia), Peter met with the Dutch ruler, Frederick Casimir. The prince tried to convince Peter to join his coalition against Sweden. In Königsberg, Peter visited the Friedrichsburg fortress. He took part in attending artillery courses, and graduated from them with a diploma certifying that “Pyotr Mikhailov gained proficiency as a bombardier and skills in the use of firearms».
The following describes Peter's visit to Levenguk with his microscope and Witsen, who compiled a book describing northern and eastern Tartary. But most of all I was interested in the description of his secret meeting: “ On September 11, 1697, Peter had a secret meeting with King William of EnglandIII. Nothing is known about their negotiations, except that they lasted two hours and ended in an amicable parting. At that time, the English navy was considered the fastest in the world. King William assured that Peter should visit the English naval shipyards, where he would learn to understand the design of ships, carry out measurements and calculations, and learn to use instruments and instruments. As soon as he arrived in England, he attempted to sail on the Thames» .
One gets the impression that it was in England that the best conditions to replace Peter with Anatoly.
The same article published the death mask of Peter the Great. The caption underneath it reads: "DeathmaskofPeter. After 1725, St. Petersburg, from the original by Bartolomeo Rastrelli, after 1725, Bronze-tinted plaster. Case 34.5 x 29 x 33 cm. State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg." This death mask has On my forehead I read the inscription in the form of a strand of hair: MIMA RUSI ROME MASK. She confirms that this image does not belong to the Russian Emperor Peter the Great, but to the Roman priest Anatoly.
Rice. 5. Miniature by an unknown artist and my reading of the inscriptions
Miniature by an unknown artist.
I found it at the address with the signature: “Peter the Great (1672 - 1725) of Russia. Enamel miniature portrait by an unknown artist, late 1790s. #Russian #history #Romanov”, Fig. 5.
Upon examination it can be stated that greatest number the inscriptions are on the background. I enhanced the miniature itself by contrast. To the left and above the head of the portrait I read the captions: RIMA RURIK YAR MARY TEMPLE AND ROME MIM AND ARKONA 30. In other words, it is now being clarified in which particular temple of Mary Rome the miniature was made: in the capital of the state of Rome, in the city a little to the west CAIRA .
To the left of my head, at hair level, I read the words in the background: MARY RUSI TEMPLE OF VAGRIA. Perhaps this is the address of the customer for the miniature. Finally, I read the writing on the character's face, on his left cheek (where the wart on the left side of the nose is missing), and here you can read the words below the shadow of the cheek: RIMA MIM ANATOLY RIMA YARA STOLITSY. So, the name Anatoly is once again confirmed, now written in rather large letters.
Rice. 6. A fragment of a picture from the Encyclopedia Britannica and my reading of the inscriptions
Picture of Peter from the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Here I read the inscriptions on the fragment, where there is a bust portrait, fig. 6, although the full picture is much broader, Fig. 7. However, I singled out exactly the fragment and the size that suited me perfectly for epigraphic analysis.
The first inscription that I began to read was an image of a mustache. On them you can read the words: TEMPLE OF ROME MIMA, and then - continuation on the upper lip: RURIK, and then on the red part of the lip: MASK OF THE TEMPLE OF MARA, and then on the lower lip: ANATOLIA ROME ARKONA 30. In other words, here we see confirmation of the previous inscriptions: again the name of Anatoly, and again its connection to the temple of Mary Rurik in the city near Cairo.
Then I read the inscription on the collar: 30 ARKONA YAR. And then I move on to look at the fragment to the left of Peter’s face, which I outlined with a black frame. Here I read the words: 30 ARKONA YAR, which has already been read. But then come new and surprising words: ANATOLIA MARY TEMPLE IN ANKARA ROME. What is surprising is not so much the existence of a special temple dedicated to Anatoly, but the location of such a temple in the capital of Turkey, Ankara. I have not yet read such words anywhere. Moreover, the word ANATOLY can be understood not only as a name person's own, but also as the name of a place in Turkey.
For now, I consider it sufficient to consider the inscriptions on the portraits. And then I am interested in the details of the substitution of the Russian Tsar, which can be found in printed works on the Internet.
Rice. 7. Picture from Encyclopedia Britannica online
Wikipedia's opinion on the substitution of Peter the Great.
In the article “Double of Peter I,” Wikipedia, in particular, states: “ According to one version, the replacement of Peter I was organized by certain influential forces in Europe during the Tsar’s trip to the Grand Embassy. It is alleged that of the Russian people who accompanied the Tsar on a diplomatic trip to Europe, only Alexander Menshikov returned - the rest are believed to have been killed. The purpose of this crime was to place a protege at the head of Russia, who pursued a policy beneficial to the organizers of the substitution and those who stood behind them. One of the possible goals of this substitution is considered to be the weakening of Russia».
Note that the history of the conspiracy to replace the Tsar of Rus' in this presentation is conveyed only from the side of facts, and, moreover, very vaguely. As if the Great Embassy itself had only the goal of creating a coalition against the Ottoman Empire, and not the goal of replacing real Romanov to his double.
« It is alleged that Peter I, according to the memoirs of his contemporaries, changed dramatically after returning from the Great Embassy. Portraits of the king before and after his return from Europe are given as evidence of the substitution. It is stated that in the portrait of Peter before his trip to Europe he had a long face, curly hair and a large wart under his left eye. In portraits of the king after his return from Europe, he had a round face, straight hair and no wart under his left eye. When Peter I returned from the Great Embassy, he was 28 years old, and in his portraits after his return he looked about 40 years old. It is believed that before the trip the king was of heavy build and above average height, but still not a two-meter giant. The king who returned was thin, had very narrow shoulders, and his height, which was absolutely established, was 2 meters 4 centimeters. So tall people were very rare at that time».
We see that the authors of these Wikipedia lines do not at all share the provisions that they present to the reader, although these provisions are facts. How can you not notice such dramatic changes in appearance? Thus, Wikipedia tries to present obvious points with some speculation, something like this: “ it is stated that two times two equals four" The fact that the person who arrived from the embassy was different can be seen by comparing any of the portraits in Fig. 1-7 with a portrait of the departed king, fig. 8.
Rice. 8. Portrait of the departed Tsar Peter the Great and my reading of the inscriptions
To the dissimilarity of facial features can be added the dissimilarity of implicit inscriptions on these two types of portraits. The real Peter is signed as “Peter Alekseevich”, the False Peter in all five portraits is signed as Anatoly. Although both were mimes (priests) of the temple of Rurik in Rome.
I will continue quoting Wikipedia: “ According to conspiracy theorists, soon after the double’s arrival in Russia, rumors began to spread among the Streltsy that the tsar was not real. Peter's sister Sophia, realizing that an impostor had come instead of her brother, led the Streltsy riot, which was brutally suppressed, and Sophia was imprisoned in a monastery».
Note that in this case, the motive for the uprising of the Streltsy and Sophia turns out to be extremely serious, while the motive for the struggle between Sophia and her brother for the throne in a country where only men have reigned until now (the usual motive of academic historiography) seems very far-fetched.
« It is alleged that Peter loved his wife Evdokia Lopukhina very much, and often corresponded with her when he was away. After the tsar returned from Europe, on his orders, Lopukhina was forcibly sent to Suzdal Monastery even against the will of the clergy (it is alleged that Peter did not even see her and did not explain the reasons for Lopukhina’s imprisonment in the monastery).
It is believed that after his return, Peter did not recognize his relatives and subsequently did not meet with them or his inner circle. In 1698, shortly after Peter’s return from Europe, his associates Lefort and Gordon died suddenly. According to conspiracy theorists, it was on their initiative that Peter went to Europe».
It is unclear why Wikipedia calls this concept a conspiracy theory. According to a conspiracy of the nobility, Paul the First was killed, the conspirators threw a bomb at the feet of Alexander the Second, the USA, England and Germany contributed to the elimination of Nicholas the Second. In other words, the West has repeatedly intervened in the fate of Russian sovereigns.
« Proponents of the conspiracy theory claim that the returning king was sick with tropical fever in a chronic form, while it can only be contracted in southern waters, and even then only after being in the jungle. The route of the Great Embassy passed along the northern sea route. The surviving documents of the Grand Embassy do not mention that the constable Pyotr Mikhailov (under this name the tsar went with the embassy) fell ill with a fever, while for the people accompanying him it was no secret who Mikhailov really was. After returning from the Grand Embassy, Peter I, during naval battles, demonstrated extensive experience in boarding combat, which has specific features that can only be mastered through experience. Boarding combat skills require direct participation in many boarding battles. Before his trip to Europe, Peter I did not take part in naval battles, since during his childhood and youth Russia did not have access to the seas, with the exception of White Sea, which Peter I did not visit often - mainly as an honorary passenger».
It follows from this that Anatoly was a naval officer who took part in the naval battles of the southern seas and suffered from tropical fever.
« It is alleged that the returning Tsar spoke Russian poorly, that he did not learn to write Russian correctly until the end of his life, and that he “hated everything Russian.” Conspiracy theorists believe that before his trip to Europe, the tsar was distinguished by his piety, and when he returned, he stopped fasting and attending church, mocked the clergy, began persecuting Old Believers and began to close monasteries. It is believed that in two years Peter forgot all the sciences and subjects that the educated Moscow nobility possessed, and at the same time acquired skills of a simple craftsman. According to conspiracy theorists, there is a striking change in Peter’s character and psyche after his return».
Again, there are clear changes not only in appearance, but also in Peter’s language and habits. In other words, Anatoly did not belong not only to the royal class, but even to the noble class, being a typical representative of the third class. In addition, there is no mention of the fact that Anatoly spoke fluent Dutch, which many researchers note. In other words, he came from somewhere in the Dutch-Danish region.
« It is alleged that the tsar, having returned from Europe, did not know about the location of the richest library of Ivan the Terrible, although the secret of the location of this library was passed from tsar to tsar. Thus, Princess Sophia allegedly knew where the library was located and visited it, and Peter, who came from Europe, repeatedly made attempts to find the library and even organized excavations».
Again, a specific fact is presented by Wikipedia as some “statements”.
« His behavior and actions are cited as evidence of Peter’s substitution (in particular, the fact that previously the tsar, who preferred traditionally Russian clothes, after returning from Europe no longer wore them, including royal clothes with a crown - conspiracy theorists explain last fact the fact that the impostor was taller than Peter and had narrower shoulders, and the tsar’s things did not fit him in size), as well as the reforms he carried out. It is argued that these reforms brought much more harm Russia, what's the use? Peter’s tightening of serfdom, the persecution of Old Believers, and the fact that under Peter I in Russia there were many foreigners in the service and in various positions are used as evidence. Before his trip to Europe, Peter I set as his goal to expand the territory of Russia, including moving south towards Cherny and Mediterranean seas. One of the main goals of the Grand Embassy was to achieve an alliance of European powers against Turkey. While the returning king began the struggle to take possession of the Baltic coast. The war waged by the Tsar with Sweden, according to supporters of the conspiracy theory, was needed by Western states, who wanted to crush the growing power of Sweden with the hands of Russia. It is alleged that Peter I carried out foreign policy in the interests of Poland, Saxony and Denmark, which could not resist the Swedish king Charles XII».
It is clear that the raids of the Crimean khans on Moscow were a constant threat to Russia, and the rulers of the Ottoman Empire stood behind the Crimean khans. Therefore, the fight with Turkey was a more important strategic task for Russia than the fight on the Baltic coast. And Wikipedia’s mention of Denmark is consistent with the inscription on one of the portraits that Anatoly was from Jutland.
« As evidence, the case of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich is also cited, who in 1716 fled abroad, where he planned to wait on the territory of the Holy Roman Empire for the death of Peter (who was seriously ill during this period) and then, relying on the help of the Austrians, to become the Russian Tsar. According to supporters of the version of the replacement of the tsar, Alexei Petrovich fled to Europe because he sought to free his real father, imprisoned in the Bastille. According to Gleb Nosovsky, the impostor’s agents told Alexei that after his return he would be able to take the throne himself, since loyal troops were waiting for him in Russia, ready to support his rise to power. Returning Alexey Petrovich, according to conspiracy theorists, was killed on the orders of the impostor».
And this version turns out to be more serious compared to the academic version, where the son opposes his father for ideological reasons, and the father, without putting his son under house arrest, immediately applies capital punishment. All this in the academic version looks unconvincing.
Version by Gleb Nosovsky.
Wikipedia also presents the version of the new chronologists. " According to Gleb Nosovsky, initially he heard many times about the version of Peter’s substitution, but never believed it. At one time, Fomenko and Nosovsky studied an exact copy of the throne of Ivan the Terrible. In those days, the zodiac signs of the current rulers were placed on the thrones. By examining the signs placed on the throne of Ivan the Terrible, Nosovsky and Fomenko found that the actual date of his birth differs from the official version by four years.
The authors of the “New Chronology” compiled a table of the names of Russian tsars and their birthdays, and thanks to this table they found out that the official birthday of Peter I (May 30) does not coincide with the day of his angel, which is a noticeable contradiction in comparison with all the names of Russian tsars. After all, names in Rus' during baptism were given exclusively according to the calendar, and the name given to Peter violated the established centuries-old tradition, which in itself does not fit into the framework and laws of that time. Based on the table, Nosovsky and Fomenko found out that the real name, which falls on the official date of birth of Peter I, was “Isaky.” This explains the name of the main cathedral of Tsarist Russia, St. Isaac's Cathedral.
Nosovsky believes that the Russian historian Pavel Milyukov also shared the opinion that the tsar was a forgery in an article in the encyclopedia of Brockhausa and Evfron Milyukov, according to Nosovsky, without directly stating, repeatedly hinted that Peter I was an impostor. The replacement of the tsar by an impostor was carried out, according to Nosovsky, by a certain group of Germans, and together with the double, a group of foreigners came to Russia. According to Nosovsky, among Peter’s contemporaries there were very widespread rumors about the replacement of the tsar, and almost all the archers claimed that the tsar was a fake. Nosovsky believes that May 30 was actually the birthday not of Peter, but of the impostor who replaced him, on whose orders St. Isaac's Cathedral, named after him, was built».
The name “Anatoly” we discovered does not contradict this version, because the name “Anatoly” was a monastic name, and not given at birth. - As we see, the “new chronologists” have added another touch to the portrait of the impostor.
Historiography of Peter.
It would seem that it would be easier to look at the biographies of Peter the Great, preferably during his lifetime, and explain the contradictions that interest us.
However, this is where disappointment awaits us. Here's what you can read in the work: " There were persistent rumors among the people about Peter's non-Russian origin. He was called the Antichrist, the German foundling. The difference between Tsar Alexei and his son was so striking that suspicions about Peter’s non-Russian origin arose among many historians. Especially official version Peter's origin was too unconvincing. She left and leaves more questions than answers. Many researchers have tried to lift the veil of strange reticence about the Peter the Great phenomenon. However, all these attempts immediately fell under the strictest taboo of the ruling house of the Romanovs. The phenomenon of Peter remained unsolved».
So, the people unequivocally asserted that Peter had been replaced. Doubts arose not only among the people, but even among historians. And then we read with surprise: “ Incomprehensibly, until the mid-19th century, not a single work with a complete historiography of Peter the Great was published. The first who decided to publish a complete scientific and historical biography of Peter was the wonderful Russian historian Nikolai Gerasimovich Ustryalov, already mentioned by us. In the Introduction to his work "History of the reign of Peter the Great" he lays out in detail why it is still (mid-19th century) scientific work on the history of Peter the Great is missing" This is how this detective story began.
According to Ustryalov, back in 1711, Peter became eager to obtain the history of his reign and entrusted this honorable mission to the translator of the Ambassadorial Order Venedikt Schiling. The latter was provided with all the necessary materials and archives, but... the work was never published, not a single sheet of the manuscript has survived. What follows is even more mysterious: “The Russian Tsar had every right to be proud of his exploits and wish to pass on to posterity the memory of his deeds in a true, unadorned form. They decided to carry out his ideaFeofan Prokopovich , Bishop of Pskov, and teacher of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich,Baron Huysen . Official materials were communicated to both, as can be seen from Feofan’s work, and as even more evidenced by the Emperor’s own handwritten note of 1714, preserved in his cabinet files: “Give all the journals to Giesen.”(1). It would seem that now the History of Peter I will finally be published. But it was not there: “A skilled preacher, a learned theologian, Theophan was not a historian at all... That is why, when describing battles, he fell into inevitable mistakes; Moreover, he worked with obvious haste, a quick fix, made omissions that I wanted to fill in later”. As we see, Peter’s choice was unsuccessful: Theophan was not a historian and did not understand anything. Huysen's work also turned out to be unsatisfactory and was not published: “Baron Huysen, having in his hands authentic journals of campaigns and travels, limited himself to extracts from them until 1715, without any connection, entangling many trifles and extraneous matters into historical events.”.
In a word, neither this biography nor the subsequent ones took place. And the author comes to the following conclusion: “ Strict censorship of all historical research continued into the 19th century. So the work of N.G. himself Ustryalov, which is the first scientific historiography of Peter I, was subjected to severe censorship. From the 10-volume edition, only individual excerpts from 4 volumes have survived! Last time This basic research about Peter I (1, 2, 3 volumes, part of the 4th volume, 6 volumes) in a truncated version was published only in 1863! Today it is virtually lost and is preserved only in antique collections. The same fate befell the work of I.I. Golikov’s “Acts of Peter the Great,” which has not been republished since the century before last! Notes from the associate and personal turner of Peter I A.K. Nartov’s “Reliable narratives and speeches of Peter the Great” were first opened and published only in 1819. At the same time, with a meager circulation in the little-known magazine “Son of the Fatherland”. But even that edition underwent unprecedented editing, when out of 162 stories only 74 were published. This work was never reprinted; the original was irretrievably lost» .
The entire book by Alexander Kas is called “The Collapse of the Empire of the Russian Tsars” (1675-1700), which implies the establishment of an empire of non-Russian tsars. And in Chapter IX, entitled “How the royal dynasty was slaughtered under Peter,” he describes the position of Stepan Razin’s troops 12 miles near Moscow. And he describes many other interesting, but practically unknown events. However, he does not provide any more information about False Peter.
Other opinions.
Again I will continue to quote the already mentioned Wikipedia article: “It is alleged that Peter’s double was an experienced sailor who participated in many naval battles, sailed a lot in southern seas. It is sometimes claimed that he was a sea pirate. Sergei Sall believes that the impostor was a high-ranking Dutch Freemason and a relative of the King of Holland and Great Britain, William of Orange. It is most often mentioned that the real name of the double was Isaac (according to one version, his name was Isaac Andre). According to Baida, the double was from either Sweden or Denmark, and by religion he was most likely a Lutheran.
Baida claims that the real Peter was imprisoned in the Bastille, and that he was the famous prisoner who went down in history under the name Iron Mask. According to Baida, this prisoner was recorded under the name Marchiel, which can be interpreted as “Mikhailov” (under this name Peter went to the Grand Embassy). It is stated that Iron Mask was tall, carried himself with dignity, and was treated fairly well. In 1703, Peter, according to Baida, was killed in the Bastille. Nosovsky claims that the real Peter was kidnapped and most likely killed.
It is sometimes claimed that the real Peter was actually tricked into going to Europe so that certain foreign forces were able to force him to subsequently pursue the policy they wanted. Without agreeing to this, Peter was kidnapped or killed, and a double was put in his place.
In one version of the version, the real Peter was captured by the Jesuits and imprisoned in a Swedish fortress. He managed to deliver a letter to King Charles XII of Sweden, and he rescued him from captivity. Later, Karl and Peter organized a campaign against the impostor, but swedish army was defeated near Poltava by Russian troops led by Peter’s double and the forces of Jesuits and Masons behind them. Peter I was captured again and hidden away from Russia - imprisoned in the Bastille, where he later died. According to this version, the conspirators kept Peter alive, hoping to use him for their own purposes.
Baida's version can be verified by examining the engravings of that time.
Rice. 9. Prisoner in an iron mask (illustration from Wikipedia)
Iron mask.
Wikipedia writes about this prisoner: “ Iron Mask (fr. Le masque de fer. Born around 1640, d. November 19, 1703) - a mysterious prisoner numbered 64389000 from the time of Louis XIV, held in various prisons, including (from 1698) the Bastille, and wore a velvet mask (later legends turned this mask into an iron one)».
Suspicions regarding the prisoner were as follows: “ Duke of Vermandois, illegitimate son of Louis XIV and Louise de La Vallière, who allegedly slapped his half-brother, the Grand Dauphin, and atoned for this guilt with eternal imprisonment. The version is implausible, since the real Louis of Bourbon died back in 1683, at the age of 16", according to Voltaire - " Iron Mask" was the twin brother of Louis XIV. Subsequently, dozens of different hypotheses were expressed about this prisoner and the reasons for his imprisonment.", some Dutch writers suggested that " The Iron Mask is a foreigner, a young nobleman, chamberlain to Queen Anne of Austria and the real father of Louis XIV. Lagrange-Chancel tried to prove in "L'année littéraire"(1759) that the Iron Mask was none other than Duke François de Beaufort, which was completely refutedN. Aulairein his "Histoire de la fronte" Reliable information about the “iron mask” was first given by the Jesuit Griffet, who was confessor in the Bastille for 9 years, in his “Traité des différentes sortes de preuves qui servent à établir la verité dans l’Histoire" (1769), where he gives the diary of Dujoncas, the royal lieutenant at the Bastille, and the list of the dead of the church of St. Paul. According to this diary, on September 19, 1698, a prisoner was delivered from the island of St. Margaret in a stretcher, whose name was unknown and whose face was constantly covered with a black velvet (not iron) mask».
However, I believe the simplest method of verification is epigraphic. In Fig. 9 shows " Prisoner in an iron mask in an anonymous engraving from the French Revolution"(same Wikipedia article). I decided to read the signature on the central character, fig. 10, slightly increasing the size of this fragment.
Rice. 10. My reading of the inscriptions on the image of the “Iron Mask”
I read the inscriptions on the wall above the prisoner's bunk, starting from the 4th row of stonework above the sheet. And gradually moving from one row to another, lower one: MASK OF THE TEMPLE OF MARA Rus' RURIK YAR THE SCYTHES MIMA OF THE WORLD MARA OF MOSCOW Rus' AND 35 ARKONA YAR. In other words, IMAGE OF A SCYTHIAN PRIEST OF THE TEMPLE OF THE RUSSIAN GODDESS MARA RURIK YAR WORLD MARA OF MOSCOW Rus' AND VELIKY NOVGOROD , which no longer corresponds to the inscriptions on the image of Anatoly, who was a mime (priest) of Rome (near Cairo), that is, the 30th Arkona Yar.
But the most interesting inscription is on a row of stonework at the level of the prisoner's head. On the left, its fragment is very small in size, and having enlarged it 15 times, I read the words as a continuation of the previous inscription: KHARAON YAR OF Rus' YAR OF RURIK TSAR, and then I read the inscription in large letters to the left of the head: PETRA ALEXEEVA, and to the right of the head - MIMA YARA.
So, the confirmation that the prisoner “Iron Mask” was Peter the Great is obvious. True, the question may arise - why? PETER ALEXEEV , but not PETER ALEXEEVICH ? But the tsar pretended to be the artisan Pyotr Mikhailov, and the people of the third estate were called something like the Bulgarians now: not Pyotr Alekseevich Mikhailov, but Pyotr Alekseev Mikhailov.
Thus, Dmitry Baida’s version found epigraphic confirmation.
Rice. 11. Urbanoglyph of Ankara from a height of 15 km
Did the Temple of Anatolia exist? To answer this question, it is necessary to consider the urban glyph of Ankara, that is, the view of this city from a certain height. To complete this task, you can turn to Google’s “Planet Earth” program. The view of the city from above is called an urbanoglyph. In this case, a screenshot with the urban glyph of Ankara is shown in Fig. eleven.
It should be noted that the image turned out to be low-contrast, which is explained by satellite photography through the entire thickness of the atmosphere. But even in this case, it is clear that on the left and above the inscriptions: “Ankara” the building blocks form the face of a mustachioed and bearded man in left profile. And to the left (west) of this person there are not entirely organized blocks of buildings, forming an area called “Yenimahalle”.
Rice. 12. Urbanoglyph of part of Ankara from a height of 8.5 km
I was just interested in these two objects. I isolated them from an altitude of 8.5 km and increased the contrast of the image. Now it is quite possible to read the inscriptions on it, fig. 15. However, it should be noted that the inscription: “Ankara” is gone completely, and only the last half of the inscription: “Yenimahalle” remains.
But you can understand that where no system was visible from a height of 15 km, now letters are visible from a height of 8.5 km. I read these letters on the decoding field, fig. 13. So, above the fragment of the word “Yenimahalle” I read the letter X of the word TEMPLE, and the letters “X” and “P” are superimposed on each other, forming a ligature. And just below I read the word ANATOLY, so that both read words form the desired phrase TEMPLE ANATOLIA . So such a temple really existed in Ankara.
However, the inscriptions of the Ankara urban glyph do not end there. The word “Anatolia” is superimposed with the digits of the number “ 20 ", and below you can read the words: YARA ARKONA. So Ankara was precisely the secondary Arkona of Yar No. 20. And even lower I read the words: YAR 33. In terms of our usual chronology, they form the date: 889 A.D. . Most likely, they indicate the date of construction of the Temple of Anatolia in Ankara.
It turns out that the name “Anatoly” is not the proper name of False Peter, but the name of the temple in which he was trained. By the way, S.A. Sall, having read my article, suggested that the name Anatoly is associated with Turkey, with its Anatolia. I found this assumption quite plausible. However, now, in the course of epigraphic analysis, it has become clear that this was the name of a specific temple in the city of Ankara, which is now the capital of the Turkish Republic. In other words, the assumption was made more concrete.
It is clear that it was not the Temple of Anatolia that received its name from the monastic name of False Peter, but, on the contrary, the monk and executor of the will of the Orange family received his agent code name from the name of this temple.
Rice. 13. My reading of the inscriptions on the urban glyph of Ankara
Discussion.
It is clear that such a historical act (more precisely, an atrocity) as the replacement of the Russian Tsar of the Romanov dynasty requires comprehensive consideration. I tried to make my contribution and, through epigraphic analysis, either confirm or refute the opinion of researchers both about the personality of Peter the Great in captivity, and about the personality of the False Peter. I think I was able to move in both directions.
First of all, it was possible to show that the prisoner of the Bastille (since 1698) under the name “Iron Mask” was indeed the Tsar of Moscow Peter Alekseevich Romanov. Now we can clarify the years of his life: he was born on May 30, 1672, and died not on January 28, 1725, but on November 19, 1703. - So the last Tsar of All Rus' (since 1682) lived not 53 years, but only 31 years.
Since the Grand Embassy began in March 1697, it is most likely that Peter was captured somewhere at the end of 1697, then he was transferred from prison to prison until he ended up in the Bastille on September 19, 1698. However, he could have been captured in 1898. He spent 5 years and exactly 1 month in the Bastille. So what we have before us is not just another “conspiracy” invention, but the West using the chance to replace the Tsar of Muscovy, who did not understand the danger of secretly visiting Western countries. Of course, if the visit had been official, replacing the tsar would have been much more difficult.
As for False Peter, it was possible to understand that he was not only a protege of Rome (moreover, the real one, near Cairo, and not the nominal one, in Italy), but also received the agent name “Anatoly” after the name of the Anatoly Temple in Ankara. If at the end of the embassy Peter was 26 years old, and Anatoly looked about 40 years old, then he was at least 14 years older than Peter, so the years of his life are as follows: he was born around 1658, and died on January 28, 1725, having lived 67 years, approximately twice as old as Peter.
The falsity of Anatoly as Peter is confirmed by five portraits, both in the form of canvases and in the form of a death mask and miniature. It turns out that the artists and sculptors knew very well who they were depicting, so the substitution of Peter was an open secret. And it turns out that with the accession of Anatoly, the Romanov dynasty was interrupted not only in the female line (for after arriving in Russia, Anatoly married a low-class Baltic woman), but also in the male line, for Anatoly was not Peter.
But it follows from this that the Romanov dynasty ended in 1703, having lasted only 90 years since 1613. This is a little more than Soviet power, which lasted from November 1917 to August 1991, that is, 77 years. But whose dynasty was established from 1703 to 1917, a period of 214 years, remains to be seen.
And from the fact that many of Anatoly’s portraits mention the temples of Mary Rurik, it follows that these temples successfully existed both in Europe and in the Ottoman Empire, and in Egypt back in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. AD so the real attack on the temples of Rurik could only begin after the accession of Anatoly to Rus', who became the persecutor of not only Russian Vedism, but also Russian Christian orthodoxy of the Byzantine model. Occupying the royal throne gave him the opportunity not only to attack Russian traditions and weaken the Russian people in an economic sense, but also to strengthen Western states at the expense of Russia.
Particular findings of this epigraphic research were the discovery of the Temple of Anatolia in Ankara and the identification of the number of Ankara as a secondary Arkona Yar. This was the twentieth Arkona Yar, which can be shown on the table by adding to it, Fig. 15.
Rice. 14. Updated Arkon numbering table
It can also be noted that the role of Ankara in the activities of Rome has not yet been sufficiently identified.
Conclusion.
It is possible that Peter's Great Embassy to Western countries was prepared in advance by Lefort and other acquaintances of Peter, but as one of possible scenarios and not at all for the purpose of overthrowing the tsar and replacing him with another person, but for involvement in Western politics. He had a lot of reasons not to come true. However, when it happened, and in a secret way, it was already possible to deal with these foreigners differently from what diplomatic protocol required. Most likely, other circumstances arose that made it easier for Peter to be captured. For example, the scattering of part of the retinue for various reasons: some to taverns, some to girls, some to doctors, some to resorts. And when, instead of 250 courtiers and guards, only about two dozen people from the retinue remained, the capture of the royal person became not too difficult. It is quite possible that Peter’s intractability and adherence to principles on political and religious issues pushed the monarchs who received him to take the most decisive actions. But for now this is only speculation.
And only one thing can be considered as a proven fact: Peter was imprisoned in the Bastille as an “Iron Mask,” and Anatoly began to commit outrages in Russia, which he declared an empire in the Western manner. Although the word “king” meant “tse Yar”, that is, “this is the messenger of the god Yar”, while “emperor” is simply “ruler”. But other details must be found out from other sources.
Literature.
- Chudinov V.A. About St. Petersburg according to Sally's statements..
- Vakolyuk Yarik. Nevsky Gate (2015). September 2, 2015.
The legend of the Iron Mask, the most mysterious of all prisoners, has existed for more than two centuries. Voltaire first told the world about him, and his research formed the basis for stories about the Iron Mask.
“A few months after the death of Mazarin,” writes Voltaire, “an unprecedented event occurred... An unknown prisoner, young and of the noblest bearing, was sent to the castle on the island of St. Margaret (near Provence). On the way, he wore a mask with steel latches on it. lower part of it, which allowed him to eat without removing the mask. Orders were given to kill him if he removed the mask. He remained on the island until a trusted officer of Saint-Mars, the governor of Pinerol, took command of the Bastille in 1690 Mr. did not go to the island of St. Margaret and did not take the prisoner to the Bastille, where he was accommodated as well as could be possible in such a place, and nothing was refused to him, whatever he asked.
The prisoner had a passion for extremely fine linen and lace - and received it. Played the guitar for hours. The most exquisite dishes were prepared for him, and the old doctor of the Bastille, who treated this man, who had peculiar illnesses, said that he had never seen his face, although he often examined his body and tongue. According to the doctor, the prisoner was remarkably built, his skin was slightly dark; The voice was striking just with its intonations alone. This man never complained about his condition, and never once betrayed his origins. The unknown died in 1703. What is doubly surprising is that when he was brought to the island of St. Margaret, not a single disappearance of famous people was recorded in Europe.”
The prisoner was, without a doubt, a noble man. The governor himself set the table for him and then left, having previously locked the cell. One day a prisoner scratched something on a silver plate with a knife and threw it out the window to a boat that was off the shore, right at the foot of the tower. The fisherman in the boat picked up the plate and brought it to the governor. The latter, extremely concerned, asked the fisherman if he had read what was scribbled here, and if anyone had seen it in his hands? The fisherman replied that he could not read and no one had seen the plate.
Voltaire found alive the last person who knew the secret of the Iron Mask - the former minister de Chamillard. His son-in-law, Marshal de La Feuillade, begged his dying father-in-law on his knees to reveal to him who the man in the iron mask really was. Chamilar replied that this was a state secret and he took an oath never to disclose it.
Naturally, Voltaire did not fail to express a number of hypotheses about the mysterious prisoner. Going through the names of nobles who died or disappeared under mysterious circumstances, he concluded that it was certainly neither the Comte de Vermandois nor the Duke de Beaufort, who disappeared only during the siege of Kandy and who could not be identified in the body beheaded by the Turks.
"The Iron Mask was, without a doubt, the elder brother of Louis XIV, whose mother had that special taste in fine linen. After I read about it in the memoirs of the era, the queen's predilection reminded me of the same tendency in the Iron Mask, after which I finally ceased to doubt that it was her son, of which all other circumstances had long convinced me... It seems to me: the more you study the history of that time, the more amazed you are at the coincidence of circumstances that testify in favor of this assumption,” - wrote Voltaire.
But this is a legend. The only thing that can be said with certainty is that after 1665, a prisoner entered the Pinerol castle under the jurisdiction of the governor of Saint-Mars, and this prisoner was the Man in the Iron Mask. The date of his arrival in Pinerol is unknown. Otherwise, it would be possible to immediately establish who was hiding under the mask. The fact is that archival documents relating to the prison, of which Saint-Mars was the head, have been preserved, and they are very accurate: they inform us in detail about the events that took place in Pinerol - the arrival of prisoners, their names, the reasons for their imprisonment, illnesses, deaths, release, if it happened occasionally.
It is indisputably established that the masked man followed Saint-Mars all the way to the Bastille. However, the mask appeared on his face only many years later, when he moved to the Bastille. In 1687 Saint-Mars became governor of the island of St. Margaret; the prisoner was also transferred there. 11 years have passed. The jailer and the prisoner grew old together. Finally, at the age of 72, Saint-Mars was appointed commander of the Bastille. The old order nevertheless remained in force: no one should see the prisoner or speak to him.
Minister Barbezou wrote to Saint-Mars: “The King finds it possible for you to leave the island of St. Margaret and go to the Bastille with your old prisoner, taking all precautions to ensure that no one sees him or knows about him.”
But how to keep a secret? Saint-Mars had an idea: instead of hiding his prisoner, why not hide only his face? It was thanks to this “find” that the Man in the Iron Mask was born. Let us note once again - never before this moment had the mysterious prisoner worn a mask. Saint-Mars managed to keep his secret for a long time. The first time the prisoner put on a mask was during a trip to Paris. In this guise he went down in history...
Actually, the mask was made of black velvet. Voltaire supplied it with steel latches. The authors who took up this topic after him wrote about it as being made “entirely of steel.” It got to the point that historians debated the question of whether the unfortunate prisoner could shave; they mentioned small tweezers, “also made of steel,” for removing hair. (Moreover: in 1885 in Langres, among old scrap iron, they found a mask that perfectly matched Voltaire’s description. There is no doubt: the inscription in Latin confirmed its authenticity...)
In August 1698, Saint-Mars and his prisoner set off. In the journal for registering prisoners of the Bastille, M. du Junca, the royal lieutenant, made the following entry: “On the 18th of September, on Thursday, at 3 o’clock in the afternoon, M. de Saint-Mars, commandant of the Bastille fortress, arrived to take office from the island of St. Margherita, bringing with him his long-time prisoner, kept under his supervision back in Pinerola, who must wear a mask at all times, and his name must not be mentioned; he was placed, immediately upon arrival, in the first cell of the Basinier Tower until nightfall, and at 9 o'clock evening I myself... transferred the prisoner to the third cell of the Bertollier Tower."
Four years later M. du Junca was forced to open the Bastille register once again. A sad event happened: Monsieur Saint-Mars lost his oldest prisoner. Du Junca recorded the following: “On the same day, 1703, November 19th, this unknown prisoner in a black velvet mask, brought by M. de Saint-Mars from the island of St. Margaret and guarded by him for a long time, died around ten o'clock in the evening after feeling a little unwell the day before after Mass, but at the same time he was not seriously ill. Monsieur Giraud, our priest, confessed him. Due to the suddenness of his death, our confessor performed the sacrament of confession literally at the last moment of his life; This prisoner, guarded for so long, was buried in the parish cemetery of Saint-Paul; when registering his death, Monsieur Rosarge, a physician, and Monsieur Rey, a surgeon, designated him by a certain name, also unknown."
After some time, du Junca managed to find out under what name the prisoner was reported. He then entered this name in the journal, and here we give the uncorrected text: “I learned that since M. de Marchiel was registered, 40 l. have been paid for the burial.”
Monsieur de Marchiel... Isn't this the name of the mysterious prisoner? The fact is that among the prisoners in Pinerola was Count Mattioli, minister and envoy of the Duke of Mantua, arrested on May 2, 1679. Mattioli’s candidacy has ardent and zealous supporters. What are the arguments of the “Matthiolists”?
When the Man in the Iron Mask died, the deceased was recorded under the name Marsciali or Marscioli. You can see a hint of Mattioli's distortion here. Marie Antoinette's maid reported that Louis XVI once told Marie Antoinette that the Man in the Mask was "a mere prisoner of a disconcerting character, a subject of the Duke of Mantua." From the intercepted correspondence it is also known that Louis XVI told Madame Pompadour the same thing: “This was one of the ministers of the Italian prince.”
But Mattioli’s story was not a secret to anyone. His betrayal, arrest, imprisonment - newspapers spread this story throughout Europe. Moreover, the enemies of France - the Spaniards and the Savoyards - published a story about his activities and arrest in order to sway public opinion in favor of Mattioli. Additionally, Mattioli died in April 1694 and the Iron Mask in 1703.
Who was he? It is very likely that the Iron Mask was a certain Eustache Doge. In 1703 he died in the Bastille, having spent 34 years in prison. What crime Doge committed is unknown. But it must have been serious to entail harsh treatment and painful isolation for so many years.
On July 19, 1669, Saint-Mars received an order from Paris for the arrival of a prisoner in Pinerol: “Monsieur Saint-Mars! The Sovereign ordered a certain Eustache Doget to be sent to Pinerol; with his maintenance, it seems extremely important to ensure careful security and, in addition, to ensure the impossibility of transfer prisoner information about himself to anyone. I will notify you about this prisoner so that you prepare for him a reliably guarded solitary cell in such a way that no one can enter the place where he will be, and that the doors of this cell securely closed so that your sentries cannot hear anything. It is necessary that you yourself bring the prisoner everything he needs once a day and under no circumstances listen to him if he wants to say anything, threatening him with death if he will open his mouth to say anything, unless it relates to the expression of his requests. You will furnish the cell for the one who is brought to you with everything necessary, taking into account that he is just a servant and he does not need any - significant benefits..."
What crime entailed such punishment? This man was "only a servant," but no doubt he was involved in some serious matter. He had to know some secrets that were so important that no one, not even Saint-Mars, knew the true guilt of this man.
Doge was constantly in complete silence and absolute solitude. The fear that Doge would speak became an obsession of the jailers and ministers. From Paris, Saint-Mars was repeatedly asked in fear: had Doget betrayed his secret?
Researcher Maurice Duvivier identifies Eustache Doget with a certain Eustache d'Auger de Cavoye, who as a child played with Louis XIV. It was the latter circumstance that became the reason that the king did not bring him to justice and personally sentenced him to life imprisonment. The reason for his imprisonment still remains a mystery. Was there another person hiding under this name? We don’t know. In any case, he was not the brother of Louis XIV.