Talk:Man in the Iron Mask

Eustache Dauger de Cavoye Theory

This is just a theory, but could it be that the Eustache Dauger de Cavoye, was only interned on paper, and not in actuality?

If this asylum was generally recognized as a place to send black sheep or familial outcasts, then couldn't it be possible that a family pretends to intern a relative into this asylum as a way to save face or save the family's honor?

Like, they can talk him to the asylum, bribe the warden to get paperwork saying that he was accepted into the asylum, and then just tell Eustache to leave and not show his face around there. So, they get the benefit of appearing to have dealt with their problem, but without the guilt of knowing they willingly imprisoned their son/brother.

And if they bribed the warden properly, then anyone else inquiring about Eustache will be told that he is indeed staying there, but can't be seen by visitors. It seems plausible to me.

And, it would also explain how a man with the same name would be imprisoned for an unknown reason, and have his identity obscured so as to not reveal that he isn't in the asylum where he's supposed to be.

Although, a notable hole in my theory is that I have no idea why Louis XIV would want to keep this information private. If he discovered that Eustache Dauger de Cavoye was not in asylum as his family claimed he was, then he would probably make an even louder example out of him and his family, not the reverse.

Unless revealing Eustache Dauger and his crimes would somehow negate the coverup he did on behalf of his mistress. If acknowledging Eustache's crimes would also expose his mistress, this this theory might be plausible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.226.238.106 (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

New Theory: Body Double?

This story really reminds me of the story of Uday Hussein's body double. He was essentially a prisoner was was kept to look exactly identical to Uday, and basically not allowed to go outside or speak to anyone when not performing his duties as a body double.

It could be that Eustache Dauger looked identically to some VIP, and his existence needed to be kept secret, hence the mask and communication rules.

Although it would be awfully hard for him to perform his job without the warden being informed of this in the correspondence. Perhaps he was a body double who had become uncooperative, and was being replaced by someone who would do the job better. Or, perhaps even more likely, he successfully performed his role as a body double and was targeted for assassination, but somehow survived. If the body double was attacked and survived, but disfigured, then he would need to be replaced, but you wouldn't necessarily want to execute him because he did serve you faithfully.

Being a body double means witnessing things which are probably classified, as well as simply knowing way too much about the heads of state (or whoever). So it makes sense that they can't let him return to society at large.

Actually, it's very similar in theory to the "spy" theory posted here, but with a more significant reason for wearing a mask. Because, he would be instantly recognized and mistaken for whichever VIP (possibly even the king), and just the simple act of looking at him would expose who he is and what his job was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.226.238.106 (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC) and — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.226.238.106 (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding sources and expanding the article

Dear fellow editors,
I am leaving the present message out of courtesy to other editors watching this article.
I have added the Further reading section just now (diffs), and am planning to expand it with several books, most of them in French, that address the subject but have not yet been used as sources. For example, the 1952 book by Georges Mongrédien is important in two ways: 1. because, as a professional historian, he wanted to assemble and review all the sources and theories available at that time, and 2. because he was not favouring any particular candidate, unlike most other authors on the subject.
I am hopeful that the books added in the new section can then be used as sources by any editor(s) who wish to make the article more complete. In the near future, I will first address the current need for more sources, as indicated by the existing templates. Also, in my future edits, I will be able to add notes on translation from French into English, per WP:HOWTRANS. Finally, I am happy to work in collaboration with other editors interested in this article. Thank you.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 17:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Dear colleagues,
I am leaving this second message out of courtesy to other editors, per WP:RFCBEFORE.
I am still in the process of expanding the present article and adding citations, and would now like to modify the structure of sections 2, 3 and 4. Specifically: instead of grouping the candidates by type (such as "King's relative", "French general", etc.), I would propose to list them chronologically ("17th century", "18th century", etc.), to show how the various types of candidates gradually emerged over the centuries. One advantage of this approach is that the reader would discover the sequence in which the candidates were identified, over time. Also, it would become a lot clearer to the reader how the historical documents uncovered by 19th century historians paved the way for Georges Mongrédien's breakthrough in 1952, when his book confirmed that the prisoner who died in the Bastille in 1703 had been arrested in July 1669 under the pseudonym of "Eustache Dauger". In turn, this made it possible, for the first time in history, to dismiss with certainty all the other candidates whose vital dates and/or circumstances were known for those years 1669-1703, as is now mentioned in the article, here.
Finally, I dare say this approach might perhaps also help to rebalance the importance of the "sensational" candidates and increase the awareness of the sad fate of this man, who spent the final 34 years of his life in prison without trial, and without any record of either his name or why he was incarcerated for so long.
In due course, and if necessary, I will be happy to raise an RfC, per WP:RFCOPEN. Thank you.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 14:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Further on from the above, I have now created a List of candidates for the Man in the Iron Mask, and inserted a link to it via a {{See also}} template placed at the top of the Candidates section. I would now like to re-structure the article using the same chronological order of appearance, while also keeping in one section all the candidates supposedly related to Louis XIV. If any other editor(s) would like to participate in this effort, then I will obviously be happy to work as a team. I will wait for a week or so before starting the rewrite in a sandbox. Thank you.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 17:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear colleagues,
As mentioned above, I've been considering how the article might be expanded and improved for both sourcing and content. I have therefore been copy editing the lead section, the 'King's father' and the 'Eustache Dauger de Cavoye' sections, and added the 'Historical documents and archives' section. To expand the article further, I've created today a sandbox copy of the article in the following user page: User:Pdebee/Man in the Iron Mask.

Citations

• I had already added important books in the 'Further reading' section, which will be relocated into the Sources section for future citations.  Done: diff.
• I have also added many sources and have cited them in some sections, but more are available at the associated article I created for the List of candidates for the Man in the Iron Mask, and these sources will be brought into the main article too.  Done: diff.

Content

• The 'Prisoner' section could be expanded, as more information is available from historical documents about the life of "Eustache Dauger" during his incarceration; for example, how the severity of his conditions evolved over the decades and why.  ToDo
  • Section to be renamed to The prisoner "whose name is not spoken" before expansion begins.  ToDo
• The 'Candidates' section could be expanded for completeness and improved by adding chronology, context, and relevant sources.  In progress
• The 'In popular culture' section could be expanded.  Done
• I plan to add sourced content about 17th century practices in the French prison system concerning the use of masks and pseudonyms.  ToDo
• I also think the article would benefit from the provision of historical context available from the sources; for example, the relevance of the Secret Treaty of Dover in relation to the timing of the prisoner's arrest.  ToDo

I have access to many of the important sources, including some rare, first editions that I acquired over the years, or that were scanned by the BnF and made available as online and downloadable PDF files.

Since I am generally quite slow, all this will take time and I would therefore welcome other ideas and suggestions on the task at hand. Thank you.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 15:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

English

Told by Elizabeth Gray and Ian Robertson 196.159.21.124 (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Move the legend to the introductory paragraph

As someone unfamiliar with this legend, I was surprised that the explanation of the title finally came in the middle of the third paragraph: "Legend has it that no one ever saw his face, as it was hidden by a mask of black velvet cloth, later misreported by Voltaire as an iron mask."

Surprisingly, the first and second paragraphs go into the identity question, which feels unmotivated: it lacks the context for why someone would question his identity in the first place.

I clicked on the link to this article for a quick explanation of what it is, not to read the current state of the theories on his identity. 2001:8A0:DFC5:7900:A4FD:BF30:A82:F2C0 (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

To: 2001:8A0:DFC5:7900:A4FD:BF30:A82:F2C0
Dear Reader;
Thank you for taking the time to post the above message. I am one of the editors active on this article and have therefore been thinking about your comments. Here are a few thoughts I would offer:

1. Since you wanted to know what it is, which I understand to mean who was this man in the iron mask?, then it seems to me that the whole of the lead section (i.e. the five paragraphs above the Table of Content) answers that perfectly: we don't know, which is partly why a legend developed around this prisoner three centuries ago. Stated differently: it is because we don't know that "someone would question his identity in the first place", as you say.
2. In any case, would it have helped you if the first paragraph included the sentence I added in bold:
   

The Man in the Iron Mask (French: L'Homme au Masque de Fer; died 19 November 1703) was an unidentified prisoner of state during the reign of Louis XIV of France (1643–1715). The strict measures taken to keep his imprisonment secret resulted in a long-lasting legend about his identity. Warranted for arrest on 19 July 1669 under the pseudonym of "Eustache Dauger", he was apprehended near Calais on 28 July, incarcerated on 24 August, and held for 34 years in the custody of the same jailer, Bénigne Dauvergne de Saint-Mars, in four successive French prisons, including the Bastille. When he died there on 19 November 1703, his inhumation certificate bore the pseudonym of "Marchioly", leading several 19th century historians to conclude the prisoner was Italian diplomat Ercole Antonio Mattioli.

The rest of the prose would remain the same, since we stated in the subsequent paragraphs that: His true identity remains a mystery..., What little is known about the prisoner..., and the enigma remained unsolved owing to the lack of reliable historical documents about the prisoner's identity and the cause of his long incarceration.

Thank you for letting me know.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 15:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I applied the above change today.  Done
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 11:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)