The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

**NOTE** After this section, we will take 2 weeks off for holiday/catch-up reading**

We move from the romantic intrigue of the court to the political financial intrigue of Colbert vs. Fouquet. Doesn't it seem that Dumas favors Fouquet? Fouquet is handsome, well-dressed, charming with the ladies, a patron of the arts, a man of honor. Colbert is ugly, severely dressed, only interested in money, willing to bend the rules. In truth, they are both getting rich off the poor and middle-class of France. They both use money to get power, and power to get money. And they are both trying to use the king for their own ends.

I plan to invite anyone to join us for the last section of the saga, The Man in the Iron Mask, which will start in about a month. But in this section, we get important information on the big secret. It seems Mme de Chevreuse is the only one besides the queen still alive who knows what really happened on Louis XIV's day of birth. (And besides the old man, who may or may not be still living.) However, seeing how Dumas wrote this part of his saga, I assume the information will come out again. You may remember we already know about a mysterious prisoner and also that Aramis has a great secret which made him General of the Order.

I was a bit confused by the point of these machinations and why La Fontaine ends up there. He is known for his verse translations of Aesop's fables and also for some scandalous verses, which are mentioned here.

At least this section is moving forward and not going in circles as the chapters about the court relations. I agree that Colbert seems the more sinister of the 2 treasury men. Maybe he is supposed to continue the line of the Richelieus and Mazarins. Fouququet is more flamboyant and would fit to Louis XIV better in my opinion. They are both spenders, who like nice things around them.

The story around Anne of Austria and her legacy becomes interesting here. So Madame de Chevreuse was obviously very close to the Queen and knows her secrets.

I was also a bit confused about the involvement of La Fontaine in this story and in addition as the lover of a married woman. That seems strange and does not seem to make much sense. But at this point I am glad that something is happening at all so that I can oversee that. I hope it will become more conspirative and that then the Musketeers get involved more again.

Weirdly, I ran across Mme de Chevreuse in an unexpected place. I am reading Daughter of Boston: The Extraordinary Diary of a Nineteenth-century Woman, Caroline Healey Dall. This woman was the Forrest Gump of 19th century Boston, intimate with Emerson, the Alcotts, Susan B Anthony, Lucy Stone, and more. She herself lectured on abolition and women's suffrage. She sometimes talked about women in history to show their abilities. One of her talks was entitled, "Mme de Chevreuse, or the Political Intriguer."

In one diary entry, Caroline Dall writes that a friend advised her to "leave out the incident about the Duchess de Chevreuse on horseback" because it was apparently too risqué. Too bad we don't have a record of this speech!

After one performance of this speech, she received an engraved card handed to her. On it was the name Wm de Rohan, and underneath was written "a descendant of Marie de Chevreuse." A footnote in the book says, "William de Rohan (1819-91), American soldier of fortune, was born "Dahlgren" but took his mother's name after a quarrel with his brother John, admiral of the US Navy. He fought in Turkey, the Argentine Republic (where he commanded the naval forces), Chile (as admiral of the navy), and Italy (as Garibaldi's chief of staff); he was a naval commander in England". Sounds like a fit descendant of Mme de Chevreuse and someone who would make a great hero for a Dumas novel!

Happy New Year to you all, firstly.

That is all very interesting, Robin. Did it say from where they got the information about Mme de Chevreuse? From historical papers or from Dumas’s novels?

Her descendant would really fit the bill. 😊

Happy New Year! 🥳
I finally read this section. I must admit I skimmed through the LaFontaine chapters - they seemed like more filler. As if we don’t have enough filler in this book.
I can’t believe that I read the entire series over one summer when I was 12 and I didn’t get seriously bored. I had really fond memories of these books, but my impression of them has been somewhat ruined now. I still love the first two books (The 3 Musketeers and 20 Yers After) but all the sequels after that are just disappointing.
Anyway, I’m committed to finishing so I will keep going.

Like I predicted (or possibly remembered from my first reading)
Madame DeChevreuse is not a lady to mess with. I really think Aramis made a huge mistake not working with her.
She immediately turned around and sold her secrets to his enemies. The best part was when she got a money order from Colbert and then got more money from the Queen 👑. The second money order will be paid by Fouquet, that way Colbert won’t know about it and in a round about way Aramis will be paying for it. He should have just given her the money when she asked for it.

Great point, Ana, about how Aramis is the one who is really paying anyway!

Thanks to everyone who is sticking with it. Hang in there, as we are soon going to get away from the claustrophobic world of the court. (At least I think so!) The whole part about La Fontaine is only needed to explain how Fouquet sells one of his official positions, which becomes an issue in the next section.