504 M A S Q U E. 
to France, without any one knowing it? and why confine 
him ? and why that mafic ? Others have dreamed that he 
was the count de Vermatidois, natural fon of Louis XIV. 
who died publicly at the army in 1683 of the fmall-pox, 
and was buried at the little town of Aire, and not Arras ; 
in which father Griffet was miftaken, but in which to be 
fure there is no great harm. Others have imagined, that 
it was the duke of Monmouth, who was beheaded pub¬ 
licly in London in the year 1685. But for this he mud 
have rifen again from the dead, and he mull have changed 
the order of time, and placed the year 1662 in the room 
of the year 1685. King James, who never forgave any 
one, and who on that account deferved all that happened 
to him, mutt have pardoned the duke of Monmouth, and' 
got another to die in his Head, who perfectly refembled 
him. This Sofia mutt firft have been found, and then he 
mutt have had the goodnefs to let his head be cut off in 
public, to fave the duke of Monmouth. It was neceffary 
that all England ttiould be deceived ; and that king James 
lliould beg of Louis XIV. to be fo obliging as to be his 
gaoler; that Louis XIV. after having fhown this trifling 
piece of civility to king James, fliould not have been want¬ 
ing in the fame attention to his friend king William and 
to queen Anne (with both of whom he was engaged in 
war), and, to pleafe them, retained the dignity of gaoler, 
with which James had honoured him. All thefe illufions 
being diflipated, it then remains to know who this prifoner 
was, and at what age he died. It is clear, that if he was 
not permitted to crofs the court of the Baftile, or to fpeak 
to his phyfician, except covered with a maflc, it mutt have 
been from the apprehenfion that his features and counte¬ 
nance might have difcovered fome refemblance. He could 
fliow his tongue, but not his face. He faid himfelf to the 
apothecary of the Baftile, a few days before his death, that 
be believed he was about 60. Mr. Marfoban, who was 
fon-in-Iaw to this apothecary, and furgeon to marlhal 
Richelieu, and afterwards to the regent duke of Orleans, 
told me this frequently. Why give him an Italian name ? 
—They always called him Marchiali. He who writes this 
article perhaps knows more than father Griffet - r but he 
will fay nothing farther.” 
This opinion has been lately refumed, illuftrated, and 
enforced, by M. de Saint Mihiel, in a work entitled “ Le 
Veritable Hemme, or. The real Man with the Iron Mafk.” 
The author, in fupport of his idea, attempts to prove 
that Anne of Auftria and cardinal Mazarine were mar¬ 
ried. This, fays he, the duchefs of Orleans affures us of 
in. three of her letters. In the firft, dated Sept, 13, 1713, 
fire expreffes herfelf as follows : “ Old Beauvais, who was 
firft lady of the bed-chamber to the queen dowager, was 
acquainted with the fecret of the ridiculous marriage ; this 
rendered it neceffary for the queen to do every thing that 
her confidante wilhed : and this circumftance has given 
rife in this country to an extenfion of the rights of firft 
ladies of the bed-chamber.” In the fecond of thefe let¬ 
ters, dated Nov. 2, 1717, (he fays, “The queen-mother, 
widow of Louis XIII. did worfe than love cardinal Ma¬ 
zarine ; (he married him, for he was not a prieft: he was 
not even in orders ; and who could have hindered her ? 
He was moft horribly tired of the good queen-mother, 
and lived on very bad terms with her; which is the re¬ 
ward that people deferve for entering into fuch marriages.” 
In her third, letter, dated July 2, 1719, fpeaking of the 
queen, the duchefs fays, “ She was perfeSly eafy refpeff- 
ing cardinal Mazarine; he was not a prieft, and therefore 
nothing could prevent their being married. The fecret 
paflage through which the cardinal went every evening 
to the queen’s- apartment is ttill to be feen at the Palais 
Royal.” Among other proofs befides the above, which 
M. de St. Mihiel brings to fubftantiate this marriage, he 
obferves, that Mazarine held all councils of ftate in his 
apartment whilft he was (having or dreflingthat he never 
permitted any perfon to fit down in his prefence, not even 
the chancellor nor marlhal Villeroi; and that, while they 
were deliberating with him. on. Hate-affairs, he would be 
often playing with his monkey or linnet. What man 
(continues the author) would have fubjefted to fuch hu¬ 
miliations a chancellor, who holds the firft office in the 
kingdom fince that of conftable has been fuppreffed, and 
a marfhal who was governor to the king, had he not been 
in reality a fovereign himfelf, in virtue of his being huf- 
band to the queen-regent? He therefore concludes, that 
the man with the iron mafk was fon to Anne of Auftria 
and cardinal Mazarine; and endeavours to juftify this af- 
fertion by a variety of conjeflural proofs. Of fome of 
thefe we (hall give a fhort fketch. 
1. No prince, or perfon of any confederation, after the 
year 1644., at which time the man with the iron mafk was 
born, until the time when his exifience was known, dif- 
appeared in France. This perfonage, therefore, was not 
a prince or great lord of France known at that time. 
2. The man with the iron maflc was not a foreigner 3 
for foreigners, even of the higheft diftinftion, did not at 
that period ltudy the French language in fuch a manner 
as to attain fo great perfection in it as to pafs for French¬ 
men. If this prifoner had fpoken with the leaft foreign 
accent, the officers, phyficians, furgeons, apothecaries, 
confeflors, and others, employed in the prifons where he 
was, and efpecially the prisoners with whom he converfed 
at St. Margaret, would not have failed to difeover it. 
From all this M. de St. Mihiel infers that he muft have 
been a Frenchman. * 
3. The exifience of the man with the iron mafk has 
been known for upwards of ninety years. Had any per¬ 
fon of high rank difappeared at an anterior period, his 
friends, relations, or acquaintances, would not have failed 
to claim him, or at leaft to fuppofe that he was the man 
concealed by this mafic. But no one difappeared, nor was 
any one claimed : the man with the iron mafk was there¬ 
fore a perfon unknown. 
4. This ftranger muft have been a perfon of very high 
birth 1 for the governor of the prifon, St. Mars, behaved 
always to him with the greateft refpeCl. 
5. This ftranger died on the 19th of November, 1703; 
and, a few years before his death, he told the apothecary of 
the Baftile, that he believed he was about 60 years of age. 
Suppofing that he was then 59 and a half, he muft have 
been born towards the end of May 1644; and, if he was 
60 wanting three months, he mult have been born in the 
end of Auguft, or the beginning of September, of the fame 
year; a period when the royal authority was in the hands 
of Anne of Auftria, but in reality exercifed more by Ma¬ 
zarine than by her. “ I have already proved (continues 
the author), that, from the firft day of the regency of Anne 
of Auftria, the greateft friendfhip, and even intimacy, 
fubfifted between this princefs and the cardinal; that thefe 
fentime-nts were changed into a mutual love ; and that 
they were afterwards united by the bonds of marriage. 
They might, therefore, well have a fon about the month 
of September, 1644, as Louis XIII. had been then dead 
more than fifteen months, having died on the 15th of May 
the year preceding.” To account for the manner in 
which the queen was able to conceal her pregnancy and 
delivery, madame de Motteville is quoted ; who relates, 
under the year 1644, that Anne of Auftria quitted the 
Louvre, becaufe her apartments there dilpleafed her; that 
(lie went to refide at the Palais Royal, which Richelieu, 
when he died, had bequeathed to the deceafed king ; that, 
when file firft occupied this lodging, Jhe was dreadfully af- 
Jlibled with the jaundice ; that the phyficians afcribed this 
diforderto her deje£lion and application to bufinefs, which 
gave her much embarraffinent; but that, being cured of 
her melancholy, as well as of her malady, _fhe refolved to 
think only of enjoying tranquillity ; which fire did, by 
communicating to her minifter the burden of public af¬ 
fairs. On this quotation, M. de St. Mihiel afics, “ Is it 
not very Angular, that the queen, who, during the twen¬ 
ty-nine years of her former wedded ftate, had always re¬ 
sided in the Louvre,efpecially from 1626, when LouisXIII. 
ceafed. to cohabit with her, until their re-union, which 
took 
