Symbolisms - Part Three
Historical-Esoteric Interpretation of Symbolism in the Pictorial Art of NICOLAS POUSSIN

The Mysterious Story of the Man in the Iron Mask

I delivered to Monsieur Nicolas Poussin the letter you had the honor to write, and he demonstrated all imaginable joy.

You cannot imagine with what care Monsieur Nicolas Poussin applies himself to the task, the affection with which he embraces it, the merit and integrity he brings to everything.

He and I have conceived certain plans which I will soon be able to explain to you in detail. From them, we will obtain from Monsieur Poussin benefits that kings would struggle to understand, and which, after him, no one will uncover in future centuries; above all, these will not entail great costs and may yield profit, as they are things so rare that no one in the world can amass such fortune so swiftly, nor anything like it...

The tale of the man in the iron mask triggered rivers of ink in the 18th century. It was addressed by the writer Alexandre Dumas, who recounted the tragic story of a mysterious masked prisoner held in utmost secrecy by the Sun King, Louis XIV.

In reality, this novel was inspired by a true and disturbing story, which also intrigued Voltaire. Throughout his life, Voltaire tried to unravel its mysteries.

Voltaire raised some fundamental questions:

• Why could no one see his face?

• Why the effort to keep it hidden for about thirty years?

Voltaire concluded that it was a well-known face the king wanted to conceal, likely resembling his own, perhaps a twin brother—a theory that also inspired Dumas. However, many historical points do not align, and the state secret seems to have deeper implications.

Let us start with an important declaration, one unknown to Voltaire.

This is a report written by Du Junca, the King’s lieutenant and jailer at the Bastille, at the time when the prisoner was confined there:

"On Thursday, September 18, at three in the afternoon, Monsieur De Saint-Mars, the new governor of the Bastille, arrived from his governorship of the islands of Sainte-Marguerite and Honorat. He brought with him, in a litter, an elderly prisoner whom he had already guarded at Pinerolo. This prisoner is always masked, and no one knows his name. He was lodged in a well-furnished room in the Bazinière Tower, as per the orders given by Monsieur De Saint-Mars, who decided the prisoner was to be served with great care..."

Therefore, the prisoner entrusted by the King to Governor De Saint-Mars had been under his custody since De Saint-Mars was governor in Pinerolo.

From this, it is deduced that the masked man disappeared from public view twenty years before the date indicated by Voltaire.

Indeed, De Saint-Mars held governorship as follows:

• From 1664 to 1681 in Pinerolo

• From 1681 to 1688 in Exile

• From 1689 to 1698 in Sainte-Marguerite

• From 1698 to 1704 at the Bastille

Let us continue with Du Junca’s account, the Bastille jailer:

On Monday, November 19, 1703, this masked prisoner, whom Governor De Saint Mars brought with him from the islands of Sainte-Marguerite and who had been detained for a long time, collapsed and died upon exiting mass. The prisoner was buried on the 20th, and Mr. Rosarges (a servant) and Dr. Reil signed the register, identifying him as "Mr. De Marchiel" and estimating his age to be around 40 years. The funeral cost was 40 francs.

As we have seen, the prisoner had spent many years in captivity, moving from Pinerolo to the Bastille. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that he was around 40 years old at the time of his death, as it is deduced that his detention lasted approximately 30 years.

The theory that the masked man was a twin of King Louis XIV seems highly implausible. At that time, the birth of an heir to the throne was an event of great public resonance. Subjects would personally attend, crowding into the queen's chamber. Numerous chronicles of the time describe such events, where the crowd pressed close to the birthing bed.

Given these customs, it would have been almost impossible to hide the birth of one of two twins!

So, who could this man be—so famous that he was imprisoned for thirty years with an iron mask during external transfers and a velvet mask in his cell, carefully ensuring that no one recognized him?

During those years, there was, in fact, a significant event involving a scandalous arrest and a mystery surrounding Nicolas Fouquet, the "Superintendent of Finances."

Nicolas Fouquet was the son of a counselor to the Parliaments of Rennes and Paris. His mother, Marie De Maupeu, came from one of the most prominent families in France.

Nicolas studied with the Jesuits, was handsome, cultured, and drawn to art and festivities. At the age of 16, Cardinal Richelieu sent him to serve as a counselor to the Parliament of Metz, and at 27, he became an intendant in the northern army.

Upon Richelieu's death, Fouquet entered the service of Cardinal Jules Mazarin, reaching the peak of his career in 1653 as "Superintendent of Finances," with the title of Monseigneur, a designation reserved for princes.

Over time, Nicolas Fouquet became one of the most prominent men in France, surpassing even the king in wealth. He managed Mazarin’s finances, handled the queen’s pension, and was the financial anchor for doctors, artists, academics, and parliamentarians.

His meteoric rise generated much envy, particularly from Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the man who never smiled, who resented his success so much that he continuously denigrated Fouquet’s work to Mazarin and the king.

In 1657, Cardinal Mazarin tasked Colbert with asking Fouquet to repay a large sum of money lent to the state. The amount was enormous, and the superintendent sought a compromise, which Mazarin rejected.

In response to this rejection, Nicolas Fouquet issued an official statement of indignation, an action he deeply regretted. As a result, Mazarin severed ties with him, and Fouquet began to fear retaliation. Around this time, he fell ill with malaria and, within the walls of his study at his villa in Saint-Mandé, began preparing a defense plan, hiding it behind a mirror—an act that ultimately sealed his fate.

On August 27, 1661, Louis XIV, who had begun to believe Colbert’s slanders, decided to arrest the superintendent. The king acted swiftly, fearing Fouquet might forge an alliance with the Breton forces, where he was popular and owned a fleet, potentially organizing a rebellion.

On September 4, the king ordered D'Artagnan to arrest Nicolas Fouquet. D’Artagnan, recognizing the importance of the figure, requested a written order.

On September 5, 1661, at 7 a.m., D'Artagnan, accompanied by five musketeers, arrested the superintendent in the main square of Nantes. Fouquet offered no resistance and was taken by carriage to Pinerolo.

Fouquet’s compliance can be interpreted in two ways: either he was reassured, perhaps believing the king himself had promised him that Colbert would soon be arrested for his slanders, or he never imagined such a severe outcome, given the secrets he knew.

In Fouquet’s villa at Saint-Mandé, Colbert’s men discovered the plan hidden behind the mirror. This discovery led to Fouquet being accused of “high treason and embezzlement against the state.”

During his trial, Nicolas Fouquet defended himself brilliantly, as the skilled lawyer he was. It is said that he alluded multiple times to a "SECRET" of great importance, which he wished to discuss directly with the king.

Officially, the king refused to hear him, and Fouquet was sentenced to the confiscation of all his possessions and exile.

In December 1664, Louis XIV—who usually intervened to reduce sentences—did the opposite for Nicolas Fouquet, ordering life imprisonment, creating a unique case in history.

But what secret was Fouquet alluding to? What did he want to discuss with the King that was so important, and why did the King commute his sentence to life imprisonment?

In 1673, an event occurred that might help us understand more.

Fouquet claimed to possess extremely important revelations and repeatedly requested a meeting with the King. His request was granted, but he was required to submit his message in writing. Fouquet immediately set to work on two “Memoirs,” which were sent to Paris, read, and then returned to him.

However, these were burned in front of him, and he was told they were never shown to the monarch.

It is also plausible that they were indeed read, but Louis XIV, unable to decipher them, sent a clear challenge back to Fouquet.

In 1678, Fouquet’s correspondence with his family intensified, partly due to the intercession of the King’s mistress, who even organized a journey in 1679 to allow Fouquet’s family to reunite with the prisoner. That same year, the mysterious Monsieur Dauger was assigned to Fouquet as a servant.

Officially, it seemed that the King was preparing to grant freedom, but suddenly and mysteriously, Nicolas Fouquet died on March 23, 1680.

At this point, it is very interesting to mention the testimony of a French historian, Abbé Papon, who was associated with the Oratory of the Church of Saint-Sulpice, the headquarters of an order called the Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement.

He wrote that in the month before Fouquet’s death in 1680, one of his valets, named La Rivière, died and was buried in the cemetery of the fortress at Pinerolo.

At that time, three men were living in the fortress: Fouquet, Dauger, and the valet La Rivière.

One of the three died in February 1680 (a month before Fouquet), and the two survivors were transferred to Exiles.

However, based on many historical accounts, it is certain that the valet La Rivière died later, at Exiles.

Therefore, it was the mysterious Dauger who died at Pinerolo.

Everything thus suggests that Fouquet did not die on March 23, 1680, but was declared dead, taking the place of Dauger, who had actually died the previous month, in February 1680.

This is why, when the prisoner was later transferred to Sainte-Marguerite, he continued to be called the Man in the Iron Mask, recorded under the name La Tour.

If Fouquet had truly died on March 23, 1680, why did his family’s petitions to the King for his release persist even after his official death? Could they have known the truth—that Fouquet was not dead?

In 1681, the Man in the Iron Mask, or the old prisoner, officially appeared at Pinerolo, while Dauger vanished from official records.

The theory of the secret held by Nicolas Fouquet likely explains why he always felt secure. If Louis XIV wanted to access this secret, his only option was to keep Fouquet alive, hoping to eventually obtain it.

But what was the secret that the King so resolutely wanted to uncover, perhaps through the constant and daily efforts of his jailer, Governor De Saint-Mars?

We must say immediately that this mystery has never been solved.

What we can rely on, with good intuition, is an attempt to understand the many connections and coincidences involving monarchs, nobles, popes, artists, clergy, and knightly orders—all tied to a land rich in beauty and mystery: Languedoc.

The Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement

This company or order was founded in 1630 on the Rue Coquillière in Paris and later moved to Saint-Sulpice, with branches spread throughout France.

Its members included illustrious figures—nobles, clergy, and artists—and it is believed to have represented a center of power and an anti-Catholic force of sorts.

Several members of Nicolas Fouquet’s family belonged to it: his mother, his brother Charles, his younger brother Louis, and two ecclesiastics from the family.

Fouquet himself had previously supported and formed strong friendships with its members.

It is believed that the Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement even organized a failed escape attempt for the superintendent.

However, the most intriguing and perhaps key relationship was that between Fouquet and a famous painter of the time, Nicolas Poussin, who lived in Rome and was a member of the Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement.

It was Poussin who, during those years, painted the famous work Les Bergers d’Arcadie, which, according to some scholars, contains valuable clues about the secret of the Templars.

This painting depicts three shepherds and a mysterious woman near a tomb bearing the famous inscription "Et in Arcadia Ego."

It should be noted that Fouquet was interested in alchemy and esotericism, as well as Hermetic philosophy. In his villa in Saint-Mandé, he had a personal laboratory frequently visited by Queen Christina of Sweden, a close friend with whom he shared these interests.

It was after the death of Queen Christina of Sweden that his circle of friends founded the Arcadian Academy in Rome.

In 1656, Louis Fouquet, Nicolas’s brother, wrote a letter to him, clearly coded, referring to a message he was to deliver in Rome to Nicolas Poussin on his behalf.

This letter is of utmost importance as it makes clear reference to a mysterious secret:

I delivered to Monsieur Nicolas Poussin the letter you had the honor to write, and he demonstrated all imaginable joy.

You cannot imagine with what care Monsieur Nicolas Poussin applies himself to the task, the affection with which he embraces it, the merit and integrity he brings to everything.

He and I have conceived certain plans which I will soon be able to explain to you in detail. From them, we will obtain from Monsieur Poussin benefits that kings would struggle to understand, and which, after him, no one will uncover in future centuries; above all, these will not entail great costs and may yield profit, as they are things so rare that no one in the world can amass such fortune so swiftly, nor anything like it...

REFERENCE

2. Kurt Rudolph, "Mandean Sources», in Foester (a cura di), Gnosis, voI. 2.
La Drower, in The Mandean.~ of Iraq and Iran (p. 14),
4.Drowe1,p.I00. -
5. Rudolph, Mandeai.sm, p. 3.
6. Schonfield, The Pentecost Revolution, p. 284. ..
7. Yamauchi, pp. 135-140.
8. Drower, p. 264.
9. lbid., p. 3.
10M. Lidzbarski, Das Johannesbuch der Mandiier (2 volumi, Gieben, 1905 e 1915).
11. In un inno manicheo del IV secolo (cfr. Haskinshp. 52.
12. Rudolph, "Mandean Sources», p. 398.
13. Citato in Drower, p. 9.
14. Citato in Rudolph, p. 299.
1.5. Citato in ibid., p. 300.
16. Sezioni 33-35 di Sidra d'Yahia.
17. Cfr. illustrazione IV in Rudolph, Mandaeism.
18. Drower,p. 3; Yamallchi,p. 80.
19. Mead. The Gnostic John 1he Baptizer, p. 16.
20. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scrip1ures, pp. 21-22.
21. Cfr. Man. Myth and Magic, n. 43, p. 1213; Riffard, Dictionnaire dell'esoterisme, pp. 154 e 294.
22.Lindsay,p.I72.
23. Rudolph, «Mandean Sources", p. 126.
24. Yamauchi, p. 24.
25. Ibid., p. 126.
26. Citato in ibid., p. 30.
27. Ibid.,p.35.
28. Ibl .,p. 176 .,;
29. Rudolph, Mandaeism, p. 3. ~
30. Schonfield, The Passover Plot, p. 208. c~
31. Yamauchi,p.29. ;f
32. Walter N. Birks, «A Personal Reminiscence" (epilogo a Birks e Gilbert, The Treasure of Montsegur).
33. Ibid., p. 154.