The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

Now we are in the middle of the action, which action is directed by the ever-present Aramis. He does indeed seem to be heir to Cardinal Richelieu. He has a shape-shifting quality here, going from the charming drinking buddy in military garb, to the leader of a powerful religious force, to a humble servant of a king.

During the dinner, I assumed that Aramis wanted to get Baisemeaux drunk so that he wouldn't notice someone making off with the prisoner. But the plot was more complicated than that. It seems that Aramis first thought to fool Baisemeaux with the switching of the paper, and when he couldn't, then he pulled rank to demand his obedience (and maybe to assure he will protect Baisemeaux when someone realizes what has happened.)

Aramis has all kinds of resources at his disposal, money, obedient (and deaf) servants, carriages, etc. And we learn he has the ambition to become Pope. For whatever reason, he assumes that power won't go to Phillipe's head and that he will be a better monarch than Louis. (Or is it just that he will be guided by Aramis, while Louis wouldn't?) I didn't remember the temptation Aramis offers of a lovely bucolic life vs. power - if they aren't discovered and killed. There are a few elements that are hard to believe. Apparently, Philippe has inborn nobility so that he naturally behaves like a king, in spite of his many years of deprivation. Also he has been able to memorize the faces of his court from miniatures, and learn all the necessary facts about them, including court intrigue. But of course, this is a book of Romanticism, it doesn't do to examine the plot too closely. At least we have gotten away from the endless scenes at court!

It is true that Louis XIV got the idea for Versailles after seeing Vaux-le-Vicomte, and he used the same architect, garden designer and painter. There is a lot of information at https://vaux-le-vicomte.com/en/decouv.... But don't read the section on Fouquet unless you are ok with a spoiler about Fouquet's future (though Dumas sort of gives it away in this section, probably assuming his readers knew it.)

I had similar thoughts about Philippe. Obviously, he was raised until he was 15 years old and might have been educated as a noblemen, but thinking he can learn everything about the court from some miniatures and some written profiles seems unrealistic. I would be very afraid of being discovered. I mean it could be anything, a memory that the king has with his mother, his wife, his other brother, his sister-in-law - Aramis cannot know all. And despite being identical twins it does not mean that the behavior in certain situations is exactly the same which could rouse suspicions. I mean if they were the same in character they would not have to switch except for Aramis’s influence over him and not over the king. I am a little shocked about this obvious obsession for power that Aramis shows wanting to be cardinal and pope and first adviser to the king. Is this just for personal power or is there also a more ethical reason for that like improving the lives of millions and ending greed and corruption within the leaders of the country and church?

I wonder how d’Artagnan will face Aramis and how Aramis justifies/ explains all of this.

I remembered that Aramis gets Philippe out of the Bastille, but I didn’t remember how he does it. I’m a little disappointed at how all this played out. Dumas could have done better. He came up with a much better escape method in Count Monte Christo.
I’ll admit I prefer the way they used in the movie adaptation.
The idea that Aramis and the commandant of the Bastille would share 5 bottles of wine and still be able to think straight is a little absurd. I initially thought that Aramis was setting up his own alibi by dining at the Bastille. I was wrong - his ‘brilliant’ plan was to switch the letters?! That’s just silly. I think for someone so smart and well informed and prepared this is a naive way to handle things. Then he leaves behind a note with his own stamp and signature. I suppose he was completely convinced in the success of his mission. He was either very confident or willing to gamble with his own life and future. I also can’t imagine how Philippe and Louis could be this similar - especially after leading different lifestyles this whole time. Even identical twins are never 100% identical.